Abstract The system design process needs to cope with the increasing complexity and size of systems,motivating the replacement of labor intensivemanual techniques with automated and semi-automated approaches.Recently, formal methods techniques, such as model-based verification and safety assessment, have been increasingly used to model systems under fault and to analyze them, generating artifacts such as fault trees and FMEA tables. In this paper, we show how to apply model-based techniques to a realistic case study from the avionics domain: a high integrity power distribution system, the Triple Modular Generator (TMG). The TMG is composed of a redundant and reconfigurable plant and a controller that must guarantee a high level of reliability. The case study is a significant challenge, from the modeling perspective, since it implements a complex reconfiguration policy, specified via a number of requirements in natural language, including a set of mutually dependent and potentially conflicting priority constraints. Moreover, from the verification standpoint, the controller must be able to handle an exponential number of possible faulty configurations. Our contribution is twofold. First, we formalize and validate the requirements and, using a constraint-based modeling style, we synthesize a correct by construction controller, avoiding the enumeration of all possible fault configurations, as is currently done by manual approaches. Second, we describe a comprehensive methodology and process, supported by the xSAP safety analysis platform that targets the modeling and safety assessment of faulty systems. Using xSAP, we are able to automatically extract minimal cut sets for the TMG. We demonstrate the scalability of our approach by analyzing a parametric version of the TMG case study that contains more than 700 variables and 90 faults.

Timed Failure Propagation Graphs (TFPGs) are a formalism used in industry to describe failure propagation in a dynamic partially observable system. TFPGs are commonly used to perform model-based diagnosis. As in any model-based diagnosis approach, however, the quality of the diagnosis strongly depends on the quality of the model. Approaches to certify the quality of the TFPG are limited and mainly rely on testing. In this work we address this problem by leveraging efficient Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) engines to perform exhaustive reasoning on TFPGs. We apply model-checking techniques to certify that a given TFPG satisfies (or not) a property of interest. Moreover, we discuss the problem of refinement and diagnosability testing and empirically show that our technique can be used to efficiently solve them.

In the early phases of the design of safety-critical systems, we need the ability to analyze the safety of different design solutions, comparing how different functional allocations impact the overall reliability of the system. To achieve this goal, we can apply formal techniques ranging from model checking to model-based fault-tree analysis. Using the results of the verification and safety analysis, we can compare different solutions and provide the domain experts with information on the strengths and weaknesses of each solution. In this paper, we consider NASA's early designs and functional allocation hypotheses for the next air traffic control system for the United States. In particular, we consider how the allocation of separation assurance capabilities and the required communication between agents affects the safety of the overall system. Due to the high level of details, we need to abstract the domain while retaining all of the key properties of NASA's designs. We present the modeling approach and verification process that we adopted. Finally, we discuss the results of the analysis when comparing different configurations including both new, self-separating and traditional, ground-separated aircraft.

Designers are often required to explore alternative solutions, trading off along different dimensions (e.g., power consumption, weight, cost, reliability, response time). Such exploration can be encoded as a problem of parameter synthesis, i.e., finding a parameter valuation (representing a design solution) such that the corresponding system satisfies a desired property. In this paper, we tackle the problem of parameter synthesis with multi-dimensional cost functions by finding solutions that are in the Pareto front: in the space of best trade-offs possible. We propose several algorithms, based on IC3, that interleave in various ways the search for parameter valuations that satisfy the property, and the optimization with respect to costs. The most effective one relies on the reuse of inductive invariants and on the extraction of unsatisfiable cores to accelerate convergence. Our experimental evaluation shows the feasibility of the approach on practical benchmarks from diagnosability synthesis and product-line engineering, and demonstrates the importance of a tight integration between model checking and cost optimization.