Loading [MathJax]/extensions/MathMenu.js
A Combinatorial Approach for Exposing Off-Nominal Behaviors | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore

A Combinatorial Approach for Exposing Off-Nominal Behaviors


Abstract:

Off-nominal behaviors (ONBs) have been a major concern in the areas of embedded systems and safety-critical systems. To address ONB problems, some researchers have propos...Show More

Abstract:

Off-nominal behaviors (ONBs) have been a major concern in the areas of embedded systems and safety-critical systems. To address ONB problems, some researchers have proposed model-based approaches that can expose ONBs by analyzing natural language requirements documents. While these approaches produced promising results, they require a lot of human effort and time. In this paper, to reduce human effort and time, we propose a combinatorial-based approach, Combinatorial Causal Component Model (Combi-CCM), which uses structured requirements patterns and combinations generated using the IPOG algorithm. We conducted an empirical study using several requirements documents to evaluate our approach, and our results indicate that the proposed approach can reduce human effort and time while maintaining the same ONB exposure ability obtained by the control techniques.
Date of Conference: 27 May 2018 - 03 June 2018
Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 02 September 2018
ISBN Information:
Electronic ISSN: 1558-1225
Conference Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
References is not available for this document.

1 Introduction

Off-nominal behaviors (ONBs) are unexpected or unintended behaviors of a system [1], [7], [12]. ONBs can occur for various reasons such as human errors caused by not following the intended procedures, components of a system being in conflicting states of operation, and environmental conditions resulting in such conflicting states. ONBs have been a major concern in the areas of embedded systems [1], medical devices, autonomous robotic systems [43], and safety-critical systems [2] because not addressing ONBs in these application domains might result in hazardous accidents and even catastrohpic results [29]. Unlike expected or nominal behaviors, ONBs requires knowledge acquisition of missing requirements and they are usually not specified in natural language (NL) requirements [12].

Select All
1.
D. Aceituna and H. Do, "Exposing the susceptibility of off-nominal behaviors in reactive system requirements", IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 136-145, 2015.
2.
C. M. Belcastro, Validation and Verification (V) of Safety-Critical Systems Operating under Off-Nominal Conditions, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer, pp. 399-419, 2012.
3.
D. M. Berry, "Ambiguity in natural language requirements documents", Monterey Workshop, pp. 1-7, 2007.
4.
Boston Scientific, "PACEMAKER system specification", Technical Report, 2007.
5.
Marco Bozzano, Alessandro Cimatti, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Viet Yen Nguyen, Thomas Noll and Marco Roveri, "The COMPASS approach: Correctness modelling and performability of aerospace systems", International Conference on Computer Safety Reliability and Security, pp. 173-186, 2009.
6.
Reliability Analysis Center, Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), 1993.
7.
J. Day, K. Donahue, M. D. Ingham, A. Kadesch, A. Kennedy and E. Post, "Modeling Off-Nominal Behavior in SysML" in AlAA Infotech, pp. 19-21, 2012.
8.
X. Devroey, M. Cordy, P. Schobbens, A. Legay and P. Heymans, "State machine flattening a mapping study and tools assessment", IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), pp. 1-8, 2015.
9.
V. Estivill-Castro, R. Hexel and D. A. Rosenblueth, "Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and model-checking of software for embedded systems by sequential scheduling of vectors of logic-labelled finite-state machines", 7th IET International Conference on System Safety incorporating the Cyber Security Conference, pp. 1-6, 2012.
10.
N. Fenton and M. Neil, "Decision Support Software for Probabilistic Risk Assessment Using Bayesian Networks", IEEE Software, vol. 31, pp. 2-26, Mar 2014.
11.
E. Feuvrier-Danziger, C. Dunkers, M. Kosowski and D. Marschner, Odd-botics, 2015.
12.
D. Firesmith, The Need to Specify Requirements for Off-Nominal Behaviors, 2012.
13.
D. C. Foyle and B. L. Hooey, "Improving evaluation and system design through the use of off-nominal testing: A methodology for scenario development" in Wright State University, pp. 397-402, 2003.
14.
G. C. Fraccone, V. Volovoi, A. E. Co16n and M. Blake, "Novel air traffic procedures: investigation of off-nominal scenarios and potential hazards", Journal of Aircraft, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 127-140, 2011.
15.
A. O. Gomes and M. V. M. Oliveira, Formal Development of a Cardiac Pacemaker: From Specification to Code, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer, pp. 210-225, 2011.
16.
D. L. Iverson, "Inductive system health monitoring", In Proceedings of The 2004 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IC-AI04)., 2004.
17.
M. Jackson, DigitalHome Software Requirements Specification, 2010.
18.
E. Jee, I. Lee and O. Sokolsky, Assurance Cases in Model-Driven Development of the Pacemaker Software, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer, pp. 343-356, 2010.
19.
D. C. Jensen and I. Y. Tumer, "Modeling and Analysis of Safety in Early Design. Procedia Computer Science", 2013 Conference on Systems Engineering Research, vol. 16, pp. 824-833, 2013.
20.
Z. Jiang, M. Pajic and R. Mangharam, "Model-Based Closed-Loop Testing of Implantable Pacemakers", IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, pp. 131-140, 2011.
21.
Y. Jou, K. Yang, M. Liao and C. Liaw, "Multi-criteria failure mode effects and criticality analysis method: a comparative case study on aircraft braking system", International Journal of Reliability and Safety, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-21, 2016.
22.
H. Kim, D. Bae, V. Debroy and W. E. Wong, "Deriving Data Dependence from/for UML State Machine Diagrams", 5th International Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement (SSIRI), pp. 118-126, 2011.
23.
J. Kloos, T. Hussain and R. Eschbach, "Risk-Based Testing of Safety-Critical Embedded Systems Driven by Fault Tree Analysis", IEEE Fourth International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshops, pp. 26-33, 2011.
24.
D. R. Kuhn, R. N. Kacker and Y. Lei, "Estimating t-Way Fault Profile Evolution During Testing", IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 2, pp. 596-597, 2016.
25.
T. Kurtoglu and I. Y. Tumer, "A graph-based fault identification and propagation framework for functional design of complex systems", Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 051401, 2008.
26.
T. Kurtoglu, I. Y. Tumer and D. C. Jensen, "A functional failure reasoning methodology for evaluation of conceptual system architectures", Research in Engineering Design, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 209-234, Oct 2010.
27.
K. Lano, "Slicing of UML state machines", Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Applied informatics and communications, pp. 63-69, 2009.
28.
Y. Lei, R. Kacker, D. R. Kuhn, V. Okun and J. Lawrence, "IPOG/IPOG-D: efficient test generation for multi-way combinatorial testing", Software Testing Verification and Reliability, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 125-148, 2008.
29.
N. G. Leveson, "Role of software in spacecraft accidents", Journal of spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 564-575, 2004.
30.
L. Liu, B. Pan, T. Wang, Q. Li, M. Aktas and M. Gamell, Automatic Delivery System, 2012.
Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.