Formal methods and supporting tools have a long record of success in the development of safety-critical systems. However, no single tool has emerged as the dominant solution for system design. Each tool differs from the others in terms of the modeling language used, its verification capabilities and other complementary features, and each development context has peculiar needs that require different tools. This is particularly problematic for the railway industry, in which formal methods are highly recommended by the norms, but no actual guidance is provided for the selection of tools. To guide companies in the selection of the most appropriate formal tools to adopt in their contexts, a clear assessment of the features of the currently available tools is required. To address this goal, this paper considers a set of 13 formal tools that have been used for railway system design, and it presents a systematic evaluation of such tools and a preliminary usability analysis of a subset of 7 tools, involving railway practitioners. The results are discussed considering the most desired aspects by industry and earlier related studies. While the focus is on the railway domain, the overall methodology can be applied to similar contexts. Our study thus contributes with a systematic evaluation of formal tools and it shows that despite the poor graphical interfaces, usability and maturity of the tools are not major problems, as claimed by contributions from the literature. Instead, support for process integration is the most relevant obstacle for the adoption of most of the tools.

Systematic evaluation and usability analysis of formal tools for railway system design

Ferrari A;Mazzanti F;Basile D;ter Beek MH
2021

Abstract

Formal methods and supporting tools have a long record of success in the development of safety-critical systems. However, no single tool has emerged as the dominant solution for system design. Each tool differs from the others in terms of the modeling language used, its verification capabilities and other complementary features, and each development context has peculiar needs that require different tools. This is particularly problematic for the railway industry, in which formal methods are highly recommended by the norms, but no actual guidance is provided for the selection of tools. To guide companies in the selection of the most appropriate formal tools to adopt in their contexts, a clear assessment of the features of the currently available tools is required. To address this goal, this paper considers a set of 13 formal tools that have been used for railway system design, and it presents a systematic evaluation of such tools and a preliminary usability analysis of a subset of 7 tools, involving railway practitioners. The results are discussed considering the most desired aspects by industry and earlier related studies. While the focus is on the railway domain, the overall methodology can be applied to similar contexts. Our study thus contributes with a systematic evaluation of formal tools and it shows that despite the poor graphical interfaces, usability and maturity of the tools are not major problems, as claimed by contributions from the literature. Instead, support for process integration is the most relevant obstacle for the adoption of most of the tools.
2021
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo" - ISTI
Formal methods
Formal tools
Railway systems
Systematic evaluation
Usability study
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
prod_455307-doc_176001.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Systematic evaluation and usability analysis of formal tools for railway system design
Dimensione 3.29 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.29 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/401791
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact