SAT based solutions for consistency problems in formal property specifications for open systems

Roy, Suchismita; Das, Susobhan; Basu, Prasenjit; Dasgupta, Pallab; Chakrabarti, P. P.

doi:10.1109/iccad.2005.1560186

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Checking consistency (or satisfiability) of temporal formulae is a well understood problem solved using various techniques in many papers (most recently using SATbased approach in [30] or in [31] where it was used as a comparison between different LTL to Büchi translation techniques). The classical problem is formulated as to decide whether a set of formulae is internally consistent.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysing sanity of requirements for avionics systems

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade it became a common practice to formalise software requirements to improve the clarity of users' expectations. In this work we build on the fact that functional requirements can be expressed in temporal logic and we propose new sanity checking techniques that automatically detect flaws and suggest improvements of given requirements. Specifically, we describe and experimentally evaluate approaches to consistency and redundancy checking that identify all inconsistencies and pinpoint their exact source (the smallest inconsistent set). We further report on the experience obtained from employing the consistency and redundancy checking in an industrial environment. To complete the sanity checking we also describe a semi-automatic completeness evaluation that can assess the coverage of user requirements and suggest missing properties the user might have wanted to formulate. The usefulness of our completeness evaluation is demonstrated in a case study of an aeroplane control system. arXiv:1510.02669v1 [cs.SE] 9 Oct 2015 the system itself can be checked using model checking [4,12] or theorem proving [7] tools. If there are some requirements the system does not meet, the cause has to be found and the development reverted. The longer it takes to discover an error in the development, the more expensive the error is to mend. Consequently, errors made during requirements specification are among the most expensive ones in the whole development.Model checking is particularly efficient in finding bugs in the design, however, it exhibits some shortcomings when it is applied to requirement analysis. In particular, if the system satisfies the formula then the model checking procedure only provides an affirmative answer and does not elaborate for the reason of the satisfaction. It could be the case that, e.g. the specified formula is a tautology, hence, it is satisfied for any system. Tautologies can be obvious, such as p ∨ ¬p or subtle, such as p U ¬(r ∧ q),

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysing sanity of requirements for avionics systems

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2005, we showed [94] that the problems of satisfiability, realizability and receptiveness of temporal specifications can be reduced to quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and solved using efficient QBF solvers.…”

Section: Bibliographic Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%