Untitled

Damm, Werner; Klose, Jochen

doi:10.1023/a:1011279932612

Cited by 41 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Formal modeling is applied in 95% of the studies and formal veriication in 67%. Model checking is the most commonly adopted technique (47%) [9,15,20,35,37,38,41,47,64,82,87,91,96,116,117,128], followed by simulation (27%) [9,15,20,36,41,57,64,82,96,116,117,124], theorem proving (19.5%) [14,41,68,72,84] and reinement (18%) [7,37,68,81,82,84,91,96,116]. Less commonly used techniques are those strictly related to code, like test generation (6%) [31,64,124], code generation (6%) [7,14,62,...…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phases. The studies cover most of the railway development phases, with dominance of Architecture (66%) [1,7,9,14,15,21,31,36,37,47,57,62,64,68,81,82,84,116,117,124,128] and Detailed Design (45%) [7,14,41,62,64,82,87,91,116,117], followed by Requirements (13%) [14,35,38,64,72], Testing (13%) [20,31,62,64,124] and Validation (9%) [14,20,41,62,64,96,117]. Most of the studies focus on only one phase (61%), followed by two (30%) and three (6%) phases.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Languages and Tools. B is the most frequent modeling language family used (22%) [1,7,116], followed by UML (18%) [21,35,38,81] and Statecharts (10%) [36,47]. As for tools, those in the B family dominate, although NuSMV is the most frequently used individual tool (11%) [35,38].…”

Section: Rq-i: What Are the Characteristics Of The Studies Reporting ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Formal Methods in Railways: A Systematic Mapping Study

Ferrari¹,

Beek

2022

ACM Comput. Surv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal methods are mathematically based techniques for the rigorous development of software-intensive systems. The railway signaling domain is a field in which formal methods have traditionally been applied, with several success stories. This article reports on a mapping study that surveys the landscape of research on applications of formal methods to the development of railway systems. Following the guidelines of systematic reviews, we identify 328 relevant primary studies, and extract information about their demographics, the characteristics of formal methods used and railway-specific aspects. Our main results are as follows: (i) we identify a total of 328 primary studies relevant to our scope published between 1989 and 2020, of which 44% published during the last 5 years and 24% involving industry; (ii) the majority of studies are evaluated through Examples (41%) and Experience Reports (38%), while full-fledged Case Studies are limited (1.5%); (iii) Model checking is the most commonly adopted technique (47%), followed by simulation (27%) and theorem proving (19.5%); (iv) the dominant languages are UML (18%) and B (15%), while frequently used tools are ProB (9%), NuSMV (8%) and UPPAAL (7%); however, a diverse landscape of languages and tools is employed; (v) the majority of systems are interlocking products (40%), followed by models of high-level control logic (27%); (vi) most of the studies focus on the Architecture (66%) and Detailed Design (45%) development phases. Based on these findings, we highlight current research gaps and expected actions. In particular, the need to focus on more empirically sound research methods, such as Case Studies and Controlled Experiments, and to lower the degree of abstraction, by applying formal methods and tools to development phases that are closer to software development. Our study contributes with an empirically based perspective on the future of research and practice in formal methods applications for railways. It can be used by formal methods researchers to better focus their scientific inquiries, and by railway practitioners for an improved understanding of the interplay between formal methods and their specific application domain.

show abstract

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Formal Methods in Railways: A Systematic Mapping Study

Ferrari¹,

Beek

2022

ACM Comput. Surv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to being used as a requirement specification language [8,17,16], LSC can also be used as a modeling language [9-12, 4, 22, 23, 13, 6, 18]. In the latter case, problems of scenario-based analysis such as model consistency checking and property verification, and of scenario-based synthesis arise.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scenario-based analysis and synthesis of real-time systems using uppaal

Larsen¹,

Li²,

Nielsen³

et al. 2010

2010 Design, Automation &Amp; Test in Europe Conference &Amp; Exhibition (DATE 2010)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an approach to scenario-based analysis and synthesis of real-time embedded systems. The inter-process behaviors of a system are modeled as a set of driving universal Live Sequence Charts (LSCs), and the scenario-based user requirement is specified as a separate monitored universal or existential LSC. By translating the set of LSCs into a behavior-equivalent network of timed automata (TA), we reduce the problems of model consistency checking and property verification to CTL real-time model checking problems. Similarly, we reduce the problem of centralized synthesis for open systems to a timed game solving problem. We implement a prototype LSC-to-TA translator, which can be linked to our LSC editor and the existing real-time model checker Uppaal and timed game solver Uppaal-Tiga. Preliminary experiments on a number of examples and a case study show the applicability and effectiveness of this approach.

show abstract

“…The modelling languages Statemate, UML and SysML can be used to model systems of any business domain. A lot of research has gone into verification of models written in these languages, see for example [8,17,41], [16,24,30,35,37,47] and [10,29,45] respectively and the references therein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal verification of OIL component specifications using mCRL2

Bunte

Gool

Willemse

2022

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To aid in making software bug-free, several high-tech companies are moving from coding to modelling. In some cases model checking techniques are explored or have already been adopted to get more value from these models. This also holds for Canon Production Printing, where the language OIL was developed for modelling control-software components. In this paper, we present OIL and give its semantics. We define a translation from OIL to mCRL2 to enable the use of model checking techniques. Moreover, we discuss validity requirements on OIL component specifications and show how these can be formalised and verified using model checking. To test the feasibility of these techniques, we apply them to two models of systems used in production.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 41 publications

References 16 publications

Formal Methods in Railways: A Systematic Mapping Study

Formal Methods in Railways: A Systematic Mapping Study

Scenario-based analysis and synthesis of real-time systems using uppaal

Formal verification of OIL component specifications using mCRL2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About