<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-07-21T23:33:25Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="3589" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:3589</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T10:29:02Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Verification of Safety-Critical Systems: A Case Study Report on Using Modern Model Checking Tools</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Jääskeläinen, Antti</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Katara, Mika</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Katz, Shmuel</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Virtanen, Heikki</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Functional safety</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>SIL-3</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>model checking</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>tools</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>paper, we describe a case study where a simple 2oo3 voting scheme for a shutdown system was verified using two bounded model checking tools, CBMC and EBMC. The system represents Systematic Capability level 3 according to IEC 61508 ed2.0. The verification process was based on requirements and pseudo code, and involved verifying C and Verilog code implementing the pseudo code. The results suggest that the tools were suitable for the task, but require considerable&#13;
training to reach productive use for code embedded in industrial equipment. We also identified some issues in the development process that could be streamlined with the use of more formal verification methods. Towards the end of the paper, we discuss the issues we found and how to address them in a practical setting.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Antti Jääskeläinen and Mika Katara and Shmuel Katz and Heikki Virtanen</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2012</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of OASIcs, Volume 24, 6th International Workshop on Systems Software Verification (2012)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/OASIcs.SSV.2011.44</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-35891</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.SSV.2011.44</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
