Validation and Verification of Safety-Critical Systems in Avionics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research addresses the issues of safety-critical systems verification and validation. Safety-critical systems such as avionics systems are complex embedded systems. They are composed of several hardware and software components whose integration requires verification and testing in compliance with the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics standards and their supplements (RTCA DO-178C). Avionics software requires certification before its deployment into an aircraft system, and testing is mandatory for certification. Until now, the avionics industry has relied on expensive manual testing. The industry is searching for better (quicker and less costly) solutions. \nThis research investigates formal verification and automatic test case generation approaches to enhance the quality of avionics software systems, ensure their conformity to the standard, and to provide artifacts that support their certification. \nThe contributions of this thesis are in model-based automatic test case generations approaches that satisfy MC/DC criterion, and bidirectional requirement traceability between low-level requirements (LLRs) and test cases. \nIn the first contribution, we integrate model-based verification of properties and automatic test case generation in a single framework. The system is modeled as an extended finite state machine model (EFSM) that supports both the verification of properties and automatic test case generation. The EFSM models the control and dataflow aspects of the system. For verification, we model the system and some properties and ensure that properties are correctly propagated to the implementation via mandatory testing. For testing, we extended an existing test case generation approach with MC/DC criterion to satisfy RTCA DO-178C requirements. Both local test cases for each component and global test cases for their integration are generated. The second contribution is a model checking-based approach for automatic test case generation. In the third contribution, we developed an EFSM-based approach that uses constraints solving to handle test case feasibility and addresses bidirectional requirements traceability between LLRs and test cases. Traceability elements are determined at a low-level of granularity, and then identified, linked to their source artifact, created, stored, and retrieved for several purposes. Requirements’ traceability has been extensively studied but not at the proposed low-level of granularity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".