Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Formal testing for separation assurance

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to address the rapidly increasing load of air traffic operations, innovative algorithms and software systems must be developed for the next generation air traffic control. Extensive verification of such novel algorithms is key for their adoption by industry. Separation assurance algorithms aim at predicting if two aircraft will get closer to each other than a minimum safe distance; if loss of separation is predicted, they also propose a change of course for the aircraft to resolve this potential conflict. In this paper, we report on our work towards developing an advanced testing framework for separation assurance. Our framework supports automated test case generation and testing, and defines test oracles that capture algorithm requirements. We discuss three different approaches to test-case generation, their application to a separation assurance prototype, and their respective strengths and weaknesses. We also present an approach for statistical analysis of the large numbers of test results obtained from our framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Betin-Can, A., Bultan, T., Lindvall, M., Lux, B., Topp, S.: Application of design for verification with concurrency controllers to air traffic control software. In: ASE 2005: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 14–23 (2005)

  2. Bishop, C.M.: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics). Springer (2006)

  3. Boyapati, R., Khurshid, S., Marinov, D.: Korat: automated testing based on Java predicates. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA), pp. 123–133. ACM Press (2002)

  4. Buntine, W.L.: Operations for learning with graphical models. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2, 159–225 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bushnell, D.H., Giannakopoulou, D., Mehlitz, P., Paielli, R., Pǎsǎreanu, C.: Verification and validation of air traffic systems: tactical separation assurance. In: Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE Press (2009)

  6. Cadar, C., Ganesh, V., Pawlowski, P.M., Dill, D.L., Engler, D.R.: EXE: automatically generating inputs of death. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (2006)

  7. Cheeseman, P., Stutz, J.: Bayesian classification (AutoClass): theory and results. In: Fayyad, U.M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., Uthurusamy, R. (eds.) Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 153–180. AAAI Press (1996)

  8. The Choco Constraint Solver. http://choco.sourceforge.net/. Accessed February 2011

  9. Clarke, E., Grumberg O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press (2000)

  10. Codecover—an open-source glass-box testing tool. http://codecover.org (2009). Accessed February 2011

  11. Cohen, D., Dalal, S., Parelius, J., Patton, G.: The combinatorial design approach to automatic test generation. IEEE Softw. 13(5), 83–88 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Consiglio, M., Carreno, V., Williams, D., Munoz, C.: Conflict prevention and separation assurance method in the small aircraft transportation system. J. Aircr. 45(0021-8669), 353–358 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., Rubin, D.B.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 39, 1–38 (1977)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowek, G., Munoz, C.: Conflict detection and resolution for 1,2,...,N aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 7th AIAA Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (2007)

  15. Dunietz, I.S., Ehrlich, W.K., Szablak, B.D., Mallows, C.L., Iannino, A.: Applying design of experiments to software testing: experience report. In: ICSE ’97: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 205–215 (1997)

  16. Erzberger, H., Heere, K.: Algorithm and operational concept for resolving short-range conflicts. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. G: J. Aerosp. Eng. 224(2), 225–243 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Erzberger, H., Lauderdale, T.A., Chu, Y.C.: Automated conflict resolution, arrival management and weather avoidance for ATM. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (2010)

  18. Fischer, B., Schumann, J.: AutoBayes: a system for generating data analysis programs from statistical models. J. Funct. Program. 13(3), 483–508 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Fraley, C., Raftery, A.E.: MCLUST: software for model-based clustering, density estimation, and discriminant analysis. Tech. Rep. 415, Department of Statistics, University of Washington (2002)

  20. Gligoric, M., Gvero, T., Jagannath, V., Khurshid, S., Kuncak, V., Marinov, D.: Test generation through programming in UDITA. In: ICSE ’10: 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (2010)

  21. Godefroid, P.: Compositional dynamic test generation. In: POPL, pp. 47–54 (2007)

  22. Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: DART: Directed automated random testing. SIGPLAN Notes 40(6), 213–223 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Godefroid, P., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K., Tetali, S.: Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation. In: POPL, pp. 43–56 (2010)

  24. Grindal, M., Offutt, J., Andler, S.F.: Combination testing strategies: a survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab. 15(3), 167–199 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. IASolver. http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/∼tim/Applets/IAsolver.html. Accessed February 2011

  26. JavaPathfinder. http://babelfish.arc.nasa.gov/trac/jpf. Accessed February 2011

  27. JUnit. http://www.junit.org/. Accessed February 2011

  28. King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Leveson, N.G., Heimdahl, M.P.E., Hildreth, H., Reese, J.D.: Requirements specification for process-control systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(9), 684–707 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Majumdar, R., Sen, K.: Hybrid concolic testing. In: ICSE ’07: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 416–426. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. McLachlan, G., Peel, D., Basford, K.E., Adams, P.: The EMMIX software for the fitting of mixtures of normal and t-components. Journal Statistical Software 4(2), 1–14 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Murphy, M.: Octave: a free, high-level language for mathematics. Linux J. 39 (1997)

  33. Octave. http://www.gnu.org/software/octave (2010)

  34. Pǎsǎreanu, C., Visser, W.: A survey of new trends in symbolic execution for software testing and analysis. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 11, 339–353 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pǎsǎreanu, C.S., Mehlitz, P.C., Bushnell, D.H., Gundy-Burlet, K., Lowry, M.R., Person, S., Pape, M.: Combining unit-level symbolic execution and system-level concrete execution for testing NASA software. In: ISSTA ’08: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 15–26. ACM (2008)

  36. RTCA. DO-178B: software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. http://www.rtca.org (1992)

  37. Schumann, J., Gundy-Burlet, K., Pǎsǎreanu, C., Menzies, T., Barrett, T.: Software V&V support by parametric analysis of large software simulation systems. In: Proc. IEEE Aerospace. IEEE Press (2009)

  38. Schumann, J., Jafari, H., Pressburger, T., Denney, E., Buntine, W., Fischer, B.: AutoBayes program synthesis system users manual. Tech. Rep. NASA/TM-2008-215366, NASA (2008)

  39. Sen, K., Marinov, D., Agha, G.: CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. In: ESEC/FSE-13: Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 263–272. ACM, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  40. T-Vec. http://www.t-vec.com (2002). Accessed February 2011

  41. Tai, K., Lie, Y.: A test generation strategy for pairwise testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(1), 109–111 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tillmann, N., de Halleux, J.: Pex: white box test generation for .NET. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R. (eds.) Tests and Proofs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4966, pp. 134–153. Springer (2008)

  43. Visser, W., Havelund, K., Brat, G.P., Park, S., Lerda, F.: Model checking programs. Autom. Softw. Eng. 10(2), 203–232 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Visser, W., Pǎsǎreanu, C.S., Khurshid, S.: Test input generation with Java PathFinder. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 29(4), 97–107 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wallace, D.R., Kuhn, D.R.: Failure modes in medical device software: an analysis of 15 years of recall data. Int. J. Reliab. Qual. Saf. Eng. 8(4) (2001)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NASA Ames, Carnegie Mellon University, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    Dimitra Giannakopoulou

  2. NASA Ames, TRACLabs, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    David H. Bushnell

  3. NASA Ames, SGT, Inc., Moffett Field, CA, USA

    Johann Schumann

  4. NASA Ames, UC Santa Cruz, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    Heinz Erzberger

  5. University Affiliated Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    Karen Heere

Authors
  1. Dimitra Giannakopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. Bushnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johann Schumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heinz Erzberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Heere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johann Schumann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giannakopoulou, D., Bushnell, D.H., Schumann, J. et al. Formal testing for separation assurance. Ann Math Artif Intell 63, 5–30 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-011-9224-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-011-9224-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation