Monitoring ICAROUS: From Requirements to Autonomous Flight
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
formal methods↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Runtime Verification”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Monitoring ROS2: From Requirements to Autonomous Robots
Context/Goals - Capture mission requirements in high-level language. - Monitor requirements for robots. At a Glance - Transform requirements into runtime monitors for ROS2: - Requirements elicitation.* - Transform requirements into Temporal Logic formulas.* - Transform Temporal Logic formulas into runtime monitors.* - Generate hard real-time code for monitors.* - Generate ROS2 application directly from requirements.+ *Steps done in prior work. +Steps extended from prior work.
Runtime verification↗
Copilot Tutorial: Streams and Interpreting
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Copilot↗
Assuring and Securing Machine Learning
A short presentation highlighting using machine learning and topological data analysis to address the challenges of assuring and securing machine learning enabled systems.
Machine Learning↗
Execution-Based Model Checking of Interrupt-Based Systems
Execution-based model checking (EMC) is a verification technique based on executing a multi-threaded/multiprocess program repeatedly in a systematic manner in order to explore the different interleavings of the program. This is in contrast to traditional model checking, where a model of a system is analyzed Several execution-based model-checking tools exist at this point, such as for example Verisoft and Java PathFinder. The most common formal specification languages used by EMC tools are un- timed, either just assertions, or linear-time temporal logic (LTL). An alternative verification technique is Runtime Execution Monitoring (REM), which is based on monitor- ing the execution of a program, checking that the execution trace conforms to a requirement specification. The Temporal Rover and DBRover are such tools. They provide a very rich specification language, being an extension of LTL with real-time constraints and time-series. We show how execution-based model checking, combined with runtime execution monitoring, can be used for the verification of a large class of safety critical systems commonly known as interrupt-based systems. The proposed approach is novel in that: (i) it supports model checking of a large class of applications not practically verifiable using conventional EMC tools, (ii) it supports verification of LTL assertions extended with real-time and time-series constraints, and (iii) it supports the verification of custom schedulers.
Drusinsky, Doron↗
Optimized Temporal Monitors for SystemC
SystemC is a modeling language built as an extension of C++. Its growing popularity and the increasing complexity of designs have motivated research efforts aimed at the verification of SystemC models using assertion-based verification (ABV), where the designer asserts properties that capture the design intent in a formal language such as PSL or SVA. The model then can be verified against the properties using runtime or formal verification techniques. In this paper we focus on automated generation of runtime monitors from temporal properties. Our focus is on minimizing runtime overhead, rather than monitor size or monitor-generation time. We identify four issues in monitor generation: state minimization, alphabet representation, alphabet minimization, and monitor encoding. We conduct extensive experimentation and identify a combination of settings that offers the best performance in terms of runtime overhead.
Tabakov, Deian↗
Efficiency Improvements to the Displacement Based Multilevel Structural Optimization Algorithm
Multilevel Structural Optimization (MSO) continues to be an area of research interest in engineering optimization. In the present project, the weight optimization of beams and trusses using Displacement based Multilevel Structural Optimization (DMSO), a member of the MSO set of methodologies, is investigated. In the DMSO approach, the optimization task is subdivided into a single system and multiple subsystems level optimizations. The system level optimization minimizes the load unbalance resulting from the use of displacement functions to approximate the structural displacements. The function coefficients are then the design variables. Alternately, the system level optimization can be solved using the displacements themselves as design variables, as was shown in previous research. Both approaches ensure that the calculated loads match the applied loads. In the subsystems level, the weight of the structure is minimized using the element dimensions as design variables. The approach is expected to be very efficient for large structures, since parallel computing can be utilized in the different levels of the problem. In this paper, the method is applied to a one-dimensional beam and a large three-dimensional truss. The beam was tested to study possible simplifications to the system level optimization. In previous research, polynomials were used to approximate the global nodal displacements. The number of coefficients of the polynomials equally matched the number of degrees of freedom of the problem. Here it was desired to see if it is possible to only match a subset of the degrees of freedom in the system level. This would lead to a simplification of the system level, with a resulting increase in overall efficiency. However, the methods tested for this type of system level simplification did not yield positive results. The large truss was utilized to test further improvements in the efficiency of DMSO. In previous work, parallel processing was applied to the subsystems level, where the derivative verification feature of the optimizer NPSOL had been utilized in the optimizations. This resulted in large runtimes. In this paper, the optimizations were repeated without using the derivative verification, and the results are compared to those from the previous work. Also, the optimizations were run on both, a network of SUN workstations using the MPICH implementation of the Message Passing Interface (MPI) and on the faster Beowulf cluster at ICASE, NASA Langley Research Center, using the LAM implementation of UP]. The results on both systems were consistent and showed that it is not necessary to verify the derivatives and that this gives a large increase in efficiency of the DMSO algorithm.
Plunkett, C. L.↗
Capturing and Analyzing Requirements with FRET
FRET is an open source tool, developed at NASA Ames, for writing, understanding, formalizing, and analyzing requirements. In practice, requirements are typically written in natural language, which is ambiguous and consequently not amenable to formal analysis. Since formal, mathematical notations are unintuitive, requirements in FRET are entered in a restricted, natural language, called FRETish with precise unambiguous meaning. FRET helps users write FRETish requirements both by providing grammar information and examples during editing, but also through English and diagrammatic explanations to clarify subtle semantic issues. For each requirement, FRET automatically produces formalizations and supports interactive simulation of produced formalizations to ensure that they capture user intentions. Through its analysis portal, FRET connects to analysis tools by exporting verification code. Currently FRET connects to (1) the CoCoSim automated analysis tool for the verification of Simulink and Stateflow models, and (2) the Copilot runtime monitoring tool for the analysis of C programs. FRET also supports the consistency/realizability analysis of requirements for identifying conflicting requirements. In this tutorial, we introduce FRET and learn to speak and analyze FRETish through several examples.
FRET↗
FRET Tutorial
In this tutorial, we present the FRET tool for writing, understanding, formalizing and analyzing requirements. In practice, requirements are typically written in natural language, which is ambiguous and consequently not amenable to formal analysis. Since formal, mathematical notations are unintuitive, requirements in FRET are entered in a restricted, natural language, called FRETish with precise unambiguous meaning. This tutorial explains how requirements can be captured in FRETish and subsequently formalized in temporal logics and in the synchronous data flow language Lustre. We show, through multiple examples, how FRET assists users in understanding FRETish requirements and clarifying subtle semantic issues through English and diagrammatic explanations as well as interactive simulation. FInally, this tutorial describes how FRET can be used to perform realizability checking for identifying conflicting requirements and the connection of FRET with (1) the CoCoSim automated analysis tool for the verification of Simulink and Stateflow models, and (2) the Copilot runtime monitoring tool for the analysis of C programs.
FRET↗
Runtime Monitoring for Unmanned Aerospace Systems with Neural Network Components
AI components (e.g., Deep Neural Networks) are increasingly used in unmanned Aerospace systems for safety-relevant applications. Rigorous Verification and Validation methods for such components are still in their infancy and thus, monitoring of the AI's behavior during runtime is essential. In this paper, we will present a runtime-monitoring architecture, which combines the advanced statistical analysis framework SYSAI (System Analysis using Statistical AI) with temporal and probabilistic runtime monitoring carried out by R2U2 (Realizable, Responsive, and Unobtrusive Unit). Learned statistical models of complex systems with AI components are produced by the SYSAI framework and provide detailed information to enable the R2U2 runtime monitor to efficiently perform advanced safety and performance checks in nominal and off-nominal conditions. We will present initial results of our tool set and architecture on a case study, a DNN-based autonomous centerline tracking system (ACT).
Yuning He↗
Verifying PLC Programs via Monitors: Extending the Integration of FRET and PLCverif
Verification of Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programs requires reasoning about propositions qualified in terms of time. CERN’s PLCverif, an open-source tool for the analysis of safety-critical PLC systems, uses Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) for the specification of properties. Until now, PLCverif depended on third-party tools that accept LTL specifications to perform verification. However, our experience with industrial PLC programs shows that, to overcome analysis limitations, a wide range of techniques are needed to successfully verify complex properties. In this paper, we extend PLCverif to enable PLC program verification of pure-past LTL (PLTL) safety properties with assertion-based verification tools. To this end, we take an algorithm from the runtime-monitoring domain, apply it to bounded model checking of PLC programs, and implement it in PLCverif. We extend the integration of NASA’s Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET) into PLCverif to use PLTL properties generated with FRET. In addition, we leverage the program structure induced by the PLC scan-cycle for a state-space reduction. Finally, we expose the algorithm to a real-world case study of critical systems at CERN.
Formal verification↗
Traveler Phase 1A Joint Review
The briefing contains the preliminary findings and suggestions for improvement of methods used in development and evaluation of a multi monitor runtime assurance architecture for autonomous flight vehicles. Initial system design, implementation, verification, and flight testing has been conducted. As of yet detailed data review is incomplete, and flight testing has been limited to initial monitor force fights. Detailed monitor flight evaluations have yet to be performed.
autonomy↗
Trustworthy Autonomy for Gateway Vehicle System Manager
The Vehicle System Manager (VSM) is the highest-level software control system in the Gateway hierarchical Autonomous System Management Architecture. The VSM provides four function categories: Mission Management and Timeline Execution, Resource Management, Fault Management, Vehicle Control and Operation. VSM provides various levels of automation ranging from fully autonomous operations with no flight crew and minimal ground monitoring to advisory automation when Gateway is crewed and has full ground monitoring. Trustworthiness is achieved via verified specification, comprehensive development verification, and real-time verification using assume-guarantee contracts. Development verification includes semantic verification of the data model via peer review and testing and assume-guarantee contracts implemented using the PlusCal/TLA+ environment. VSM also uses runtime assume-guarantee contracts, implemented in R2U2 via a runtime monitor that feeds the necessary telemetry data to R2U2 and which receives and responds to the R2U2 verdict stream. The full lifecycle verification approach and use of assume-guarantee contracts provides increased trustworthiness to VSM. Preliminary results provide encouragement that VSM can be both autonomous and trustworthy.
Assume-guarantee contracts↗
Environment Modeling Using Runtime Values for JPF-Android
Software applications are developed to be executed in a specific environment. This environment includes external native libraries to add functionality to the application and drivers to fire the application execution. For testing and verification, the environment of an application is simplified abstracted using models or stubs. Empty stubs, returning default values, are simple to generate automatically, but they do not perform well when the application expects specific return values. Symbolic execution is used to find input parameters for drivers and return values for library stubs, but it struggles to detect the values of complex objects. In this work-in-progress paper, we explore an approach to generate drivers and stubs based on values collected during runtime instead of using default values. Entry-points and methods that need to be modeled are instrumented to log their parameters and return values. The instrumented applications are then executed using a driver and instrumented libraries. The values collected during runtime are used to generate driver and stub values on- the-fly that improve coverage during verification by enabling the execution of code that previously crashed or was missed. We are implementing this approach to improve the environment model of JPF-Android, our model checking and analysis tool for Android applications.
Verification↗
Mission Data System Java Edition Version 7
The Mission Data System framework defines closed-loop control system abstractions from State Analysis including interfaces for state variables, goals, estimators, and controllers that can be adapted to implement a goal-oriented control system. The framework further provides an execution environment that includes a goal scheduler, execution engine, and fault monitor that support the expression of goal network activity plans. Using these frameworks, adapters can build a goal-oriented control system where activity coordination is verified before execution begins (plan time), and continually during execution. Plan failures including violations of safety constraints expressed in the plan can be handled through automatic re-planning. This version optimizes a number of key interfaces and features to minimize dependencies, performance overhead, and improve reliability. Fault diagnosis and real-time projection capabilities are incorporated. This version enhances earlier versions primarily through optimizations and quality improvements that raise the technology readiness level. Goals explicitly constrain system states over explicit time intervals to eliminate ambiguity about intent, as compared to command-oriented control that only implies persistent intent until another command is sent. A goal network scheduling and verification process ensures that all goals in the plan are achievable before starting execution. Goal failures at runtime can be detected (including predicted failures) and handled by adapted response logic. Responses can include plan repairs (try an alternate tactic to achieve the same goal), goal shedding, ignoring the fault, cancelling the plan, or safing the system.
Reinholtz, William K.↗
Information Security and Integrity Systems
Viewgraphs from the Information Security and Integrity Systems seminar held at the University of Houston-Clear Lake on May 15-16, 1990 are presented. A tutorial on computer security is presented. The goals of this tutorial are the following: to review security requirements imposed by government and by common sense; to examine risk analysis methods to help keep sight of forest while in trees; to discuss the current hot topic of viruses (which will stay hot); to examine network security, now and in the next year to 30 years; to give a brief overview of encryption; to review protection methods in operating systems; to review database security problems; to review the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (Orange Book); to comment on formal verification methods; to consider new approaches (like intrusion detection and biometrics); to review the old, low tech, and still good solutions; and to give pointers to the literature and to where to get help. Other topics covered include security in software applications and development; risk management; trust: formal methods and associated techniques; secure distributed operating system and verification; trusted Ada; a conceptual model for supporting a B3+ dynamic multilevel security and integrity in the Ada runtime environment; and information intelligence sciences.
Source record↗
Trustworthy Autonomy for Gateway Vehicle System Manager
This webinar will present techniques for achieving trusted autonomous operations that are being pioneered on the NASA Lunar Gateway Vehicle System Manager (VSM). The challenges of achieving trusted autonomy faced by the VSM project are similar to challenges in underwater autonomous systems. The webinar will describe the overall approach to verification and present in detail the use of design-time (development) assume-guarantee contracts using model checking and runtime (operational) assume-guarantee contracts. The webinar will conclude with a summary of lessons learned to date and future challenges.
Assume-guarantee contracts↗
Embedding Differential Dynamic Logic in PVS
Runtime assurance is a control framework where a complex controller operates under the observation of a monitor. If the monitor detects the controller exhibiting undesirable behavior, control is passed off to a trusted controller until a desirable state is regained. The runtime assurance architecture provides a layer of assurance to the system being controlled, but special care must be taken that the resulting overall system, consisting of the monitors and controllers, is behaving as intended. This talk aims to formally model and reason about runtime assurance-equipped systems as hybrid programs- which are models that consist of both discrete and continuous components. Using the verification tool Plaidypvs, safety properties of some examples involving RTA architectures is shown.
Formal Verification↗