skip to main content
article

Finding Locally Smallest Cut Sets using Max-SMT

Published:05 April 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Model-based development (MBD) is increasingly being used for system-level development of safety-critical systems. This approach allows safety engineers to leverage the system model created during the MBD process to assess the system's resilience to component failure. In particular, one fundamental activity is the identification of minimal cut sets (MCSs), i.e, minimal sets of faults that lead to the violation of a safety requirement. Although the construction of a formal system model enables safety engineers to automate the generation of MCSs, this is usually a computationally expensive task for complex enough systems. We present a method that leverages Max-SMT solvers to efficiently obtain a small set of faults based on a local optimization of the cut set cardinality. Initial experimental results show the effectiveness of the method in generating cut sets that are close or equal to globally optimal solutions (smallest cut sets) while providing an answer 5.6 times faster on average than the standard method to find a smallest cut set.

References

  1. Parosh Aziz Abdulla, Johann Deneux, Gunnar Stålmarck, Herman Ågren, and Ove Åkerlund. 2004. Designing Safe, Reliable Systems Using Scade. In Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, First International Symposium, ISoLA 2004, Paphos, Cyprus, October 30 - November 2, 2004, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4313), Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen (Eds.). Springer, 115--129. https://doi.org/10.1007/11925040_8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund M. Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. 1999. Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, 5th International Conference, TACAS '99, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on the Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS'99, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 22--28, 1999, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1579), Rance Cleaveland (Ed.). Springer, 193--207. https: //doi.org/10.1007/3--540--49059-0_14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh (Eds.). 2021. Handbook of Satisfiability - Second Edition. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 336. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10. 3233/FAIA336Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Marco Bozzano, Alessandro Cimatti, Alberto Griggio, and Cristian Mattarei. 2015. Efficient Anytime Techniques for Model-Based Safety Analysis. In Computer Aided Verification - 27th International Conference, CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18--24, 2015, Proceedings, Part I (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9206), Daniel Kroening and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.). Springer, 603--621. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978--3--319--21690--4_41Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Aaron R. Bradley. 2011. SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - 12th International Conference, VMCAI 2011, Austin, TX, USA, January 23--25, 2011. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6538), Ranjit Jhala and David A. Schmidt (Eds.). Springer, 70--87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642--18275--4_7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Elaheh Ghassabani, Andrew Gacek, and Michael W. Whalen. 2016. Efficient generation of inductive validity cores for safety properties. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13--18, 2016, Thomas Zimmermann, Jane Cleland-Huang, and Zhendong Su (Eds.). ACM, 314--325. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290. 2950346Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Elaheh Ghassabani, Michael W. Whalen, and Andrew Gacek. 2017. Efficient generation of all minimal inductive validity cores. In 2017 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, FMCAD 2017, Vienna, Austria, October 2--6, 2017, Daryl Stewart and Georg Weissenbacher (Eds.). IEEE, 31--38. https://doi.org/10.23919/FMCAD.2017.8102238Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nicolas Halbwachs, Fabienne Lagnier, and Christophe Ratel. 1992. Programming and Verifying Real-Time Systems by Means of the Synchronous Data-Flow Language LUSTRE. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 18, 9 (1992), 785--793. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.159839Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Joshi, S.P. Miller, M. Whalen, and M.P.E. Heimdahl. 2005. A proposal for model-based safety analysis. In 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Vol. 2. 13 pp. Vol. 2--. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2005.1563469Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Temesghen Kahsai and Cesare Tinelli. 2011. PKind: A parallel kinduction based model checker. In Proceedings 10th Int'l Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Methods in verifiCation, PDMC 2011 (EPTCS, Vol. 72). 55--62. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.72.6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel Larraz, Mickaël Laurent, and Cesare Tinelli. 2021. Merit and Blame Assignment with Kind 2. In Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems - 26th International Conference, FMICS 2021, Paris, France, August 24--26, 2021, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12863), Alberto Lluch-Lafuente and Anastasia Mavridou (Eds.). Springer, 212--220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--85248--1_14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel Larraz, Mickaël Laurent, and Cesare Tinelli. 2021. Merit and Blame Assignment with Kind 2. CoRR abs/2105.06575 (2021). arXiv:2105.06575 https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.06575Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Robert Nieuwenhuis and Albert Oliveras. 2006. On SAT Modulo Theories and Optimization Problems. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2006, 9th International Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, August 12--15, 2006, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4121), Armin Biere and Carla P. Gomes (Eds.). Springer, 156--169. https://doi.org/10.1007/11814948_18Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mary Sheeran, Satnam Singh, and Gunnar Stålmarck. 2000. Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, Third International Conference, FMCAD 2000, Austin, Texas, USA, November 1--3, 2000, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1954),Warren A. Hunt Jr. and Steven D. Johnson (Eds.). Springer, 108--125. https://doi.org/10.1007/3--540--40922-X_8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Danielle Stewart, Michael W. Whalen, Mats Per Erik Heimdahl, Jing Liu, and Darren D. Cofer. 2021. Composition of Fault Forests. In Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security - 40th International Conference, SAFECOMP 2021, York, UK, September 8--10, 2021, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12852), Ibrahim Habli, Mark Sujan, and Friedemann Bitsch (Eds.). Springer, 258--275. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978--3-030--83903--1_17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!