Google Scholar

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published
Jul 23, 2015
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 28 Download : 23

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Safety critical system always provides the automatic system machine where automation testing become an important part for safety. Automation testing is one way to change the way to operate Safety critical system. This is achieved by changing the nature of the tasks that the operators perform. Safety standard assures the little about design and verification of operating procedures. Safety in coma system is maintained by using model checker and mutation testing model. The model checker is used for validating informal hazard analysis result. The coma monitoring system verifies the erroneous human behavior in coma patient system using model checker in which mutation testing method analyze the human behavior interface with the system and generate the invalid actions. The state diagram of coma patient recognition system use for identify whether the system is in safe state or in unsafe state. Testing is important in order to achieve sufficiently high software quality. Test-suite derived from the specification can only be as good as the specification itself.

Keywords: Model Checking, Task analysis, System Safety, Human Automation Interaction (HAI), coma, coma Patient Monitoring, Mutation testing, mutants, specification.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Author Biography

Manisha Umak, Prof. U. A. Jogalekar, Smt. Kashibai Navale college of Engineering, Vadgaon (BK), Pune

Pune University
How to Cite
Prof. U. A. Jogalekar, M. U. (2015). Control Model for Analyzing Erroneous Human Behavior a System Safety Using Model Checker with Mutation Testing Approach. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology, 2(07). Retrieved from https://igmpublication.org/ijetst.in/index.php/ijetst/article/view/823

References

1. Matthew L. Bolton and Ellen J. Bass, ”Generating Erroneous Human Behavior From Strategic Knowledge in Task Models and Evaluating Its Impact on System Safety With Model Checking”, IEEE Transaction On Systems, Man, And Cybernetics: Systems, Vol. 43, No. 6, November 2013.
2. M. L. Bolton, E. J. Bass, and R. I. Siminiceanu, “Using formal verification to evaluate human-automation interaction: A review,”, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. Syst., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 488-503, May 2013
3. M. L. Bolton, E. J. Bass, and R. I. Siminiceanu, ”Generating Phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking,” Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud., vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 888-906, 2012. 5, pp. 961-976, Sep. 2011.
4. M. L. Bolton and E. J. Bass,”Using task analytic models to visualize model checker counterexamples,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man, Cybern., Oct. 2010, pp. 2069-2074.
5. E. J. Bass, M. L. Bolton, K. Feigh, D. Griffith, E. Gunter, W. Mansky, and J. Rushby, ”Toward a multi-method approach to formalizing human automation interaction and human-human communications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst., Man, Cybern., Oct. 2011, pp. 1817-1824.
6. P. Curzon, R. Ruksenas, and A. Blandford,” An approach to formal verification of human-computer interaction,” Formal Aspects Comput., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 513-550, 2007.
7. E. J. Bass, S. T. Ernst-Fortin, R. L. Small, and J. Hogans, ”Architecture and development environment of a knowledge-based monitor that facilitate incremental knowledge-based development ,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,Man, Cybern. A, Syst. Humans, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 441-449, Jul. 2004.
8. A. Blandford, R. Butterworth, and P. Curzon, ”Models of interactive systems: A case study on programmable user modelling,” Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 149-200, 2004.
9. L. De Moura, S. Owre, and N. Shankar, ”The SAL language manual,” Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, Tech. Rep. CSL-01-01, 2003.
10. R. Parasuraman, T. Sheridan, and C. Wickens,”A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man,Cybern. A, Syst., Humans, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 286-297, May 2000.
11. P. Ammann, P. E. Black, and W. Ding, “Model Checkers in Software Testing. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002.
12. D. Javaux, “A method for predicting errors when interacting with finite state systems. How implicit learning shapes the user’s knowledge of a system,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 147–165, 2002.
13. P. Ammann, W. Ding, and D. Xu. Using a Model Checker to Test Safety Properties. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, pages 212–221, June 2001.
14. P. Curzon and A. Blandford, “From a formal user model to design rules,” in Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2002, pp. 1–15.
15. J. M. Wing, “A specifier’s introduction to formal methods,” Computer, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 8–23, Sep. 1990.