Re: [SystemSafety] Data on Proof effectiveness from real projects

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:47:44 +0200

On 2016-03-30 08:39 , David MENTRE wrote:
> And there is also King et al. paper "Is proof More Cost Effective than Testing?" on SHOLIS project.
> Interestingly, for SHOLIS the efficiency of fault detection was, in decreasing order, "Z proof"
> (i.e. spec proof), "System Validation" (i.e. System tests), "Integration Test", Code proof and
> "Acceptance" (client tests?) and Unit test. This illustrates well that the best approach is a mix of
> test (especially for integration and validation) and proof (especially at spec level, very
> efficient, but code proof is also more efficient that unit test).

One should also take into account that SHOLIS is a project executed a decade and a half ago, and the effective use of formal techniques has progressed since then, witness the information on IFACTS contained in the 2014 Chapman-Schanda survey paper.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Mar 30 2016 - 08:47:51 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:08 CEST