Engineering topics

Rushby, John

Publications and source records attributed to Rushby, John.

At least 19 records

NASA NTRS2018

Considerations in Assuring Safety of Increasingly Autonomous Systems

Recent technological advances have accelerated the development and application of increasingly autonomous (IA) systems in civil and military aviation. IA systems can provide automation of complex mission tasks-ranging across reduced crew operations, air-traffic management, and unmanned, autonomous aircraft-with most applications calling for collaboration and teaming among humans and IA agents. IA systems are expected to provide benefits in terms of safety, reliability, efficiency, affordability, and previously unattainable mission capability. There is also a potential for improving safety by removal of human errors. There are, however, several challenges in the safety assurance of these systems due to the highly adaptive and non-deterministic behavior of these systems, and vulnerabilities due to potential divergence of airplane state awareness between the IA system and humans. These systems must deal with external sensors and actuators, and they must respond in time commensurate with the activities of the system in its environment. One of the main challenges is that safety assurance, currently relying upon authority transfer from an autonomous function to a human to mitigate safety concerns, will need to address their mitigation by automation in a collaborative dynamic context. These challenges have a fundamental, multidimensional impact on the safety assurance methods, system architecture, and V&V capabilities to be employed. The goal of this report is to identify relevant issues to be addressed in these areas, the potential gaps in the current safety assurance techniques, and critical questions that would need to be answered to assure safety of IA systems. We focus on a scenario of reduced crew operation when an IA system is employed which reduces, changes or eliminates a human's role in transition from two-pilot operations.

Alves, Erin E.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Understanding and Evaluating Assurance Cases

Assurance cases are a method for providing assurance for a system by giving an argument to justify a claim about the system, based on evidence about its design, development, and tested behavior. In comparison with assurance based on guidelines or standards (which essentially specify only the evidence to be produced), the chief novelty in assurance cases is provision of an explicit argument. In principle, this can allow assurance cases to be more finely tuned to the specific circumstances of the system, and more agile than guidelines in adapting to new techniques and applications. The first part of this report (Sections 1-4) provides an introduction to assurance cases. Although this material should be accessible to all those with an interest in these topics, the examples focus on software for airborne systems, traditionally assured using the DO-178C guidelines and its predecessors. A brief survey of some existing assurance cases is provided in Section 5. The second part (Section 6) considers the criteria, methods, and tools that may be used to evaluate whether an assurance case provides sufficient confidence that a particular system or service is fit for its intended use. An assurance case cannot provide unequivocal "proof" for its claim, so much of the discussion focuses on the interpretation of such less-than-definitive arguments, and on methods to counteract confirmation bias and other fallibilities in human reasoning.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS2011

Formal methods for test case generation

The invention relates to the use of model checkers to generate efficient test sets for hardware and software systems. The method provides for extending existing tests to reach new coverage targets; searching *to* some or all of the uncovered targets in parallel; searching in parallel *from* some or all of the states reached in previous tests; and slicing the model relative to the current set of coverage targets. The invention provides efficient test case generation and test set formation. Deep regions of the state space can be reached within allotted time and memory. The approach has been applied to use of the model checkers of SRI's SAL system and to model-based designs developed in Stateflow. Stateflow models achieving complete state and transition coverage in a single test case are reported.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS2003

A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety-Critical Embedded Systems

We describe and compare the architectures of four fault-tolerant, safety-critical buses with a view to deducing principles common to all of them, the main differences in their design choices, and the tradeoffs made. Two of the buses come from an avionics heritage, and two from automobiles, though all four strive for similar levels of reliability and assurance. The avionics buses considered are the Honeywell SAFEbus (the backplane data bus used in the Boeing 777 Airplane Information Management System) and the NASA SPIDER (an architecture being developed as a demonstrator for certification under the new DO-254 guidelines); the automobile buses considered are the TTTech Time-Triggered Architecture (TTA), recently adopted by Audi for automobile applications, and by Honeywell for avionics and aircraft control functions, and FlexRay, which is being developed by a consortium of BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Motorola, and Philips.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS2002

Modular Certification

Airplanes are certified as a whole: there is no established basis for separately certifying some components, particularly software-intensive ones, independently of their specific application in a given airplane. The absence of separate certification inhibits the development of modular components that could be largely "precertified" and used in several different contexts within a single airplane, or across many different airplanes. In this report, we examine the issues in modular certification of software components and propose an approach based on assume-guarantee reasoning. We extend the method from verification to certification by considering behavior in the presence of failures. This exposes the need for partitioning, and separation of assumptions and guarantees into normal and abnormal cases. We then identify three classes of property that must be verified within this framework: safe function, true guarantees, and controlled failure. We identify a particular assume-guarantee proof rule (due to McMillan) that is appropriate to the applications considered, and formally verify its soundness in PVS.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS2000

An Overview of SAL

To become practical for assurance, automated formal methods must be made more scalable, automatic, and cost-effective. Such an increase in scope, scale, automation, and utility can be derived from an emphasis on a systematic separation of concerns during verification. SAL (Symbolic Analysis Laboratory) attempts to address these issues. It is a framework for combining different tools to calculate properties of concurrent systems. The heart of SAL is a language, developed in collaboration with Stanford, Berkeley, and Verimag for specifying concurrent systems in a compositional way. Our instantiation of the SAL framework augments PVS with tools for abstraction, invariant generation, program analysis (such as slicing), theorem proving, and model checking to separate concerns as well as calculate properties (i.e., perform, symbolic analysis) of concurrent systems. We. describe the motivation, the language, the tools, their integration in SAL/PAS, and some preliminary experience of their use.

Bensalem, Saddek↗

NASA NTRS1999

Structural Embeddings: Mechanization with Method

The most powerful tools for analysis of formal specifications are general-purpose theorem provers and model checkers, but these tools provide scant methodological support. Conversely, those approaches that do provide a well-developed method generally have less powerful automation. It is natural, therefore, to try to combine the better-developed methods with the more powerful general-purpose tools. An obstacle is that the methods and the tools often employ very different logics. We argue that methods are separable from their logics and are largely concerned with the structure and organization of specifications. We, propose a technique called structural embedding that allows the structural elements of a method to be supported by a general-purpose tool, while substituting the logic of the tool for that of the method. We have found this technique quite effective and we provide some examples of its application. We also suggest how general-purpose systems could be restructured to support this activity better.

Munoz, Cesar↗

NASA NTRS1999

Partitioning in Avionics Architectures: Requirements, Mechanisms, and Assurance

Automated aircraft control has traditionally been divided into distinct "functions" that are implemented separately (e.g., autopilot, autothrottle, flight management); each function has its own fault-tolerant computer system, and dependencies among different functions are generally limited to the exchange of sensor and control data. A by-product of this "federated" architecture is that faults are strongly contained within the computer system of the function where they occur and cannot readily propagate to affect the operation of other functions. More modern avionics architectures contemplate supporting multiple functions on a single, shared, fault-tolerant computer system where natural fault containment boundaries are less sharply defined. Partitioning uses appropriate hardware and software mechanisms to restore strong fault containment to such integrated architectures. This report examines the requirements for partitioning, mechanisms for their realization, and issues in providing assurance for partitioning. Because partitioning shares some concerns with computer security, security models are reviewed and compared with the concerns of partitioning.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1997

Analyzing Tabular and State-Transition Requirements Specifications in PVS

We describe PVS's capabilities for representing tabular specifications of the kind advocated by Parnas and others, and show how PVS's Type Correctness Conditions (TCCs) are used to ensure certain well-formedness properties. We then show how these and other capabilities of PVS can be used to represent the AND/OR tables of Leveson and the Decision Tables of Sherry, and we demonstrate how PVS's TCCs can expose and help isolate errors in the latter. We extend this approach to represent the mode transition tables of the Software Cost Reduction (SCR) method in an attractive manner. We show how PVS can check these tables for well-formedness, and how PVS's model checking capabilities can be used to verify invariants and reachability properties of SCR requirements specifications, and inclusion relations between the behaviors of different specifications. These examples demonstrate how several capabilities of the PVS language and verification system can be used in combination to provide customized support for specific methodologies for documenting and analyzing requirements. Because they use only the standard capabilities of PVS, users can adapt and extend these customizations to suit their own needs. Those developing dedicated tools for individual methodologies may find these constructions in PVS helpful for prototyping purposes, or as a useful adjunct to a dedicated tool when the capabilities of a full theorem prover are required. The examples also illustrate the power and utility of an integrated general-purpose system such as PVS. For example, there was no need to adapt or extend the PVS model checker to make it work with SCR specifications described using the PVS TABLE construct: the model checker is applicable to any transition relation, independently of the PVS language constructs used in its definition.

Owre, Sam↗

NASA NTRS1995

Formal methods and their role in digital systems validation for airborne systems

This report is based on one prepared as a chapter for the FAA Digital Systems Validation Handbook (a guide to assist FAA certification specialists with advanced technology issues). Its purpose is to explain the use of formal methods in the specification and verification of software and hardware requirements, designs, and implementations; to identify the benefits, weaknesses, and difficulties in applying these methods to digital systems used in critical applications; and to suggest factors for consideration when formal methods are offered in support of certification. The presentation concentrates on the rationale for formal methods and on their contribution to assurance for critical applications within a context such as that provided by DO-178B (the guidelines for software used on board civil aircraft); it is intended as an introduction for those to whom these topics are new.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1994

Model-based reconfiguration: Diagnosis and recovery

We extend Reiter's general theory of model-based diagnosis to a theory of fault detection, identification, and reconfiguration (FDIR). The generality of Reiter's theory readily supports an extension in which the problem of reconfiguration is viewed as a close analog of the problem of diagnosis. Using a reconfiguration predicate 'rcfg' analogous to the abnormality predicate 'ab,' we derive a strategy for reconfiguration by transforming the corresponding strategy for diagnosis. There are two obvious benefits of this approach: algorithms for diagnosis can be exploited as algorithms for reconfiguration and we have a theoretical framework for an integrated approach to FDIR. As a first step toward realizing these benefits we show that a class of diagnosis engines can be used for reconfiguration and we discuss algorithms for integrated FDIR. We argue that integrating recovery and diagnosis is an essential next step if this technology is to be useful for practical applications.

Crow, Judy↗

NASA NTRS1993

Formal methods and digital systems validation for airborne systems

This report has been prepared to supplement a forthcoming chapter on formal methods in the FAA Digital Systems Validation Handbook. Its purpose is as follows: to outline the technical basis for formal methods in computer science; to explain the use of formal methods in the specification and verification of software and hardware requirements, designs, and implementations; to identify the benefits, weaknesses, and difficulties in applying these methods to digital systems used on board aircraft; and to suggest factors for consideration when formal methods are offered in support of certification. These latter factors assume the context for software development and assurance described in RTCA document DO-178B, 'Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification,' Dec. 1992.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1993

A formally verified algorithm for interactive consistency under a hybrid fault model

Consistent distribution of single-source data to replicated computing channels is a fundamental problem in fault-tolerant system design. The 'Oral Messages' (OM) algorithm solves this problem of Interactive Consistency (Byzantine Agreement) assuming that all faults are worst-cass. Thambidurai and Park introduced a 'hybrid' fault model that distinguished three fault modes: asymmetric (Byzantine), symmetric, and benign; they also exhibited, along with an informal 'proof of correctness', a modified version of OM. Unfortunately, their algorithm is flawed. The discipline of mechanically checked formal verification eventually enabled us to develop a correct algorithm for Interactive Consistency under the hybrid fault model. This algorithm withstands $a$ asymmetric, $s$ symmetric, and $b$ benign faults simultaneously, using $m+1$ rounds, provided $n is greater than 2a + 2s + b + m$, and $m\geg a$. We present this algorithm, discuss its subtle points, and describe its formal specification and verification in PVS. We argue that formal verification systems such as PVS are now sufficiently effective that their application to fault-tolerance algorithms should be considered routine.

Lincoln, Patrick↗

NASA NTRS1993

Formal methods for dependable real-time systems

The motivation for using formal methods to specify and reason about real time properties is outlined and approaches that were proposed and used are sketched. The formal verifications of clock synchronization algorithms are concluded as showing that mechanically supported reasoning about complex real time behavior is feasible. However, there was significant increase in the effectiveness of verification systems since those verifications were performed, at it is to be expected that verifications of comparable difficulty will become fairly routine. The current challenge lies in developing perspicuous and economical approaches to the formalization and specification of real time properties.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1992

Formal verification of an oral messages algorithm for interactive consistency

The formal specification and verification of an algorithm for Interactive Consistency based on the Oral Messages algorithm for Byzantine Agreement is described. We compare our treatment with that of Bevier and Young, who presented a formal specification and verification for a very similar algorithm. Unlike Bevier and Young, who observed that 'the invariant maintained in the recursive subcases of the algorithm is significantly more complicated than is suggested by the published proof' and who found its formal verification 'a fairly difficult exercise in mechanical theorem proving,' our treatment is very close to the previously published analysis of the algorithm, and our formal specification and verification are straightforward. This example illustrates how delicate choices in the formulation of the problem can have significant impact on the readability of its formal specification and on the tractability of its formal verification.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1991

Formal specification and verification of a fault-masking and transient-recovery model for digital flight-control systems

The formal specification and mechanically checked verification for a model of fault-masking and transient-recovery among the replicated computers of digital flight-control systems are presented. The verification establishes, subject to certain carefully stated assumptions, that faults among the component computers are masked so that commands sent to the actuators are the same as those that would be sent by a single computer that suffers no failures.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1990

Evaluation of an expert system for fault detection, isolation, and recovery in the manned maneuvering unit

The authors explore issues in the specification, verification, and validation of artificial intelligence (AI) based software, using a prototype fault detection, isolation and recovery (FDIR) system for the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU). They use this system as a vehicle for exploring issues in the semantics of C-Language Integrated Production System (CLIPS)-style rule-based languages, the verification of properties relating to safety and reliability, and the static and dynamic analysis of knowledge based systems. This analysis reveals errors and shortcomings in the MMU FDIR system and raises a number of issues concerning software engineering in CLIPs. The authors came to realize that the MMU FDIR system does not conform to conventional definitions of AI software, despite the fact that it was intended and indeed presented as an AI system. The authors discuss this apparent disparity and related questions such as the role of AI techniques in space and aircraft operations and the suitability of CLIPS for critical applications.

Rushby, John↗

NASA NTRS1990

What FM can offer DFCS design

The results of aircrafts and spacecrafts flight tests are reported. It is shown that the problems of Digital Flight Control Systems (DFCS) are the problems of systems whose complexity has exceeded the reach of the intellectual tools employed. It is also shown that intuition, experience, and techniques derived from mechanical and analog systems are insufficient for complex, integrated, digital systems. Formal Methods (FM) of computer science can offer DFCS systematic techniques for the construction of trustworthy software, including: techniques for the precise specification of requirements and the development of designs; systematic approaches to the design and structuring of distributed and concurrent systems; fault tolerance algorithms; and systematic methods of testing and analytic methods of verification.

Rushby, John↗