Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

Andy Galloway; Richard F. Paige; Nicholas J. Tudor; Rob A. Weaver; Ian Toyn; John McDermid

doi:10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405

Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

Andy Galloway^*, Richard F. Paige, Nicholas J. Tudor, Rob A. Weaver, Ian Toyn, John McDermid

^*Corresponding author for this work

Computer Science

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Abstract

During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology -the CLawZ toolset -and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	24th DASC
Subtitle of host publication	24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference - Proceedings
Volume	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2005
Event	24th DASC: 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference - Washington, DC, United States Duration: 30 Oct 2005 → 3 Nov 2005

Conference

Conference	24th DASC: 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference
Country/Territory	United States
City	Washington, DC
Period	30/10/05 → 3/11/05

Access to Document

10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405

Cite this

@inproceedings{76014cf6b0aa4b959526423016456269,

title = "Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards",

abstract = "During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology -the CLawZ toolset -and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.",

author = "Andy Galloway and Paige, {Richard F.} and Tudor, {Nicholas J.} and Weaver, {Rob A.} and Ian Toyn and John McDermid",

year = "2005",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405",

language = "English",

isbn = "0780393074",

volume = "2",

booktitle = "24th DASC",

note = "24th DASC: 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference ; Conference date: 30-10-2005 Through 03-11-2005",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

AU - Galloway, Andy

AU - Paige, Richard F.

AU - Tudor, Nicholas J.

AU - Weaver, Rob A.

AU - Toyn, Ian

AU - McDermid, John

PY - 2005/12/1

Y1 - 2005/12/1

N2 - During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology -the CLawZ toolset -and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.

AB - During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology -the CLawZ toolset -and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746233219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405

DO - 10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:33746233219

SN - 0780393074

SN - 9780780393073

VL - 2

BT - 24th DASC

T2 - 24th DASC: 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference

Y2 - 30 October 2005 through 3 November 2005

ER -

Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

Abstract

Conference

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this