Validating Industrial Requirements with a Contract-Based Approach

This paper presents our contract-based design technique for formalizing requirements during the design phase of a complicated and safety-critical automotive component. In our approach, contracts are created using property specification patterns to eliminate ambiguous unstructured natural language requirements, which could lead to misinterpretations or mismatched interfaces in the integration phases of the design process. These patterns are then automatically transformed into Signal Temporal Logic (STL) formulas. The STL formulas are verified on a modeled system of the component, utilizing the Matlab® toolbox Breach. This approach validates the industrial requirements described in the contracts, and can help achieve the requirement-based testing demanded by automotive safety standard ISO 26262.

[1]  Alistair Mavin,et al.  Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax (EARS) , 2009, 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[2]  Lars Grunske,et al.  Aligning Qualitative, Real-Time, and Probabilistic Property Specification Patterns Using a Structured English Grammar , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[3]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Generating automated and online test oracles for Simulink models with continuous and uncertain behaviors , 2019, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE.

[4]  Alexandre Donzé,et al.  Breach, A Toolbox for Verification and Parameter Synthesis of Hybrid Systems , 2010, CAV.

[5]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  AMT 2.0: qualitative and quantitative trace analysis with extended signal temporal logic , 2018, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[6]  Mark van den Brand,et al.  Extracting Models from ISO 26262 for Reusable Safety Assurance , 2013, ICSR.

[7]  Thomas Kühne,et al.  Matters of (Meta-) Modeling , 2006, Software & Systems Modeling.

[8]  Alejandra Ruiz,et al.  Model-based specification of safety compliance needs for critical systems: A holistic generic metamodel , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[9]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  Monitoring Temporal Properties of Continuous Signals , 2004, FORMATS/FTRTFT.

[10]  Bart Meyers,et al.  ProMoBox: A Framework for Generating Domain-Specific Property Languages , 2014, SLE.

[11]  Shuhei Yamashita,et al.  Introduction of ISO 26262 'Road vehicles-Functional safety' , 2012 .

[12]  Alessandro Cimatti,et al.  OCRA: A tool for checking the refinement of temporal contracts , 2013, 2013 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE).

[13]  Oded Maler,et al.  Robust Satisfaction of Temporal Logic over Real-Valued Signals , 2010, FORMATS.

[14]  Thomas Ferrère,et al.  Efficient Robust Monitoring for STL , 2013, CAV.

[15]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  Contracts for Systems Design: Theory , 2015 .

[16]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  Trace Diagnostics Using Temporal Implicants , 2015, ATVA.

[17]  Sanford Friedenthal,et al.  A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language , 2008 .

[18]  George S. Avrunin,et al.  Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[19]  Christine Julien,et al.  Efficient and Scalable Runtime Monitoring for Cyber–Physical System , 2018, IEEE Systems Journal.

[20]  Lui Sha,et al.  Compositional Verification of Architectural Models , 2012, NASA Formal Methods.

[21]  Marco Di Natale,et al.  Generation of simulink monitors for control applications from formal requirements , 2017, 2017 12th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES).