Arguments about the safety, security, and correctness of a complex system are often made in the form of an assurance case. An assurance case is a structured argument, often represented with a graphical interface, that presents and supports claims about a system's behavior. The argument may combine different kinds of evidence to justify its top level claim. While assurance cases deliver some level of guarantee of a system's correctness, they lack the rigor that proofs from formal methods typically provide. Furthermore, changes in the structure of a model during development may result in inconsistencies between a design and its assurance case. Our solution is a framework for automatically generating assurance cases based on 1) a system model specified in an architectural design language, 2) a set of logical rules expressed in a domain specific language that we have developed, and 3) the results of other formal analyses that have been run on the model. We argue that the rigor of these automatically generated assurance cases exceeds those of traditional assurance case arguments because of their more formal logical foundation and direct connection to the architectural model.
The work in @cite_31 ties together an assurance case with a model-based notation (Simulink) for the purpose of demonstrating that the Simulink-generated code meets its requirements. This work has many similarities to ours, in that the assurance case is closely tied to the hierarchical structure of the model. It is more rigorous (in that the assurance case is derived from a formal proof) but also much more narrow, corresponding to a component in the system assurance cases that we create. The two approaches could perhaps be integrated to provide more rigorous safety cases for a wider class of software developed in a model-based environment.
@cite_31
2150543751
Model-based development and automated code generation are increasingly used for actual production code, in particular in mathematical and engineering domains. However, since code generators are typically not qualified, there is no guarantee that their output satisfies the system requirements, or is even safe. Here we present an approach to systematically derive safety cases that argue along the hierarchical structure in model-based development. The safety cases are constructed mechanically using a formal analysis, based on automated theorem proving, of the automatically generated code. The analysis recovers the model structure and component hierarchy from the code, providing independent assurance of both code and model. It identifies how the given system safety requirements are broken down into component requirements, and where they are ultimately established, thus establishing a hierarchy of requirements that is aligned with the hierarchical model structure. The derived safety cases reflect the results of the analysis, and provide a high-level argument that traces the requirements on the model via the inferred model structure to the code. We illustrate our approach on flight code generated from hierarchical Simulink models by Real-Time Workshop.