Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

94 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing the Assurance Efficacy of Automated Risk Mitigation Strategies

Verification and validation of increasingly autonomous aviation systems is a major challenge. Traditional techniques for the assurance of high-confidence, safety-critical systems are not equipped to handle the complexity, uncertainty, and lack of predictability inherent in non-deterministic systems. Techniques such as run time monitoring, formal methods, and testing and simulation have been applied to some effect, but it is difficult to properly assess the success of such measures. The authors propose the concept of Assurance Efficacy to address this gap. Assurance Efficacy is seen as a parameter, criteria, or perspective by which to evaluate, identify and explore safety risk mitigation strategies and operational assurance architectures. Validation of the utility of this concept through flight testing is a first step in determining its potential role in assessing the overall safety of complex, increasingly autonomous systems that cannot be fully assured in the design phase.

system safety↗
NASA NTRS2003

Experimental Evaluation of Verification and Validation Tools on Martian Rover Software

To achieve its science objectives in deep space exploration, NASA has a need for science platform vehicles to autonomously make control decisions in a time frame that excludes intervention from Earth-based controllers. Round-trip light-time is one significant factor motivating autonomy capability, another factor is the need to reduce ground support operations cost. An unsolved problem potentially impeding the adoption of autonomy capability is the verification and validation of such software systems, which exhibit far more behaviors (and hence distinct execution paths in the software) than is typical in current deepspace platforms. Hence the need for a study to benchmark advanced Verification and Validation (V&V) tools on representative autonomy software. The objective of the study was to access the maturity of different technologies, to provide data indicative of potential synergies between them, and to identify gaps in the technologies with respect to the challenge of autonomy V&V. The study consisted of two parts: first, a set of relatively independent case studies of different tools on the same autonomy code, second a carefully controlled experiment with human participants on a subset of these technologies. This paper describes the second part of the study. Overall, nearly four hundred hours of data on human use of three different advanced V&V tools were accumulated, with a control group that used conventional testing methods. The experiment simulated four independent V&V teams debugging three successive versions of an executive controller for a Martian Rover. Defects were carefully seeded into the three versions based on a profile of defects from CVS logs that occurred in the actual development of the executive controller. The rest of the document is structured a s follows. In section 2 and 3, we respectively describe the tools used in the study and the rover software that was analyzed. In section 4 the methodology for the experiment is described; this includes the code preparation, seeding of defects, participant training and experimental setup. Next we give a qualitative overview of how the experiment went from the point of view of each technology; model checking (section 5), static analysis (section 6), runtime analysis (section 7) and testing (section 8). The find section gives some preliminary quantitative results on how the tools compared.

Brat, Guillaume↗
NASA NTRS2013

Maintaining the Health of Software Monitors

Software health management (SWHM) techniques complement the rigorous verification and validation processes that are applied to safety-critical systems prior to their deployment. These techniques are used to monitor deployed software in its execution environment, serving as the last line of defense against the effects of a critical fault. SWHM monitors use information from the specification and implementation of the monitored software to detect violations, predict possible failures, and help the system recover from faults. Changes to the monitored software, such as adding new functionality or fixing defects, therefore, have the potential to impact the correctness of both the monitored software and the SWHM monitor. In this work, we describe how the results of a software change impact analysis technique, Directed Incremental Symbolic Execution (DiSE), can be applied to monitored software to identify the potential impact of the changes on the SWHM monitor software. The results of DiSE can then be used by other analysis techniques, e.g., testing, debugging, to help preserve and improve the integrity of the SWHM monitor as the monitored software evolves.

Runtime Monitor↗
DOE OSTI2022

Performance of the Initial Implementation of the Shift Monte Carlo Code in SCALE 6.3

The Shift Monte Carlo code will be introduced in SCALE 6.3 as an alternative to the KENO V.a, KENO-VI, and Monaco codes. Calculations were performed to establish the performance of Shift for criticality safety analyses within the criticality safety analyses sequence (CSAS) based on models in the Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID). This test suite contains over 600 critical experiment models covering a broad range of fissile materials and neutron energy spectra. The comparisons presented include calculated k eff values and runtime performance for serial calculations and a selection of parallel calculations. Comparisons are presented for multigroup (MG) and continuous-energy (CE) calculations for KENO V.a and KENO-VI models. Results generated with a beta version of SCALE 6.3 indicate excellent agreement in k eff values between KENO and Shift. The largest differences in the average k eff value calculated for the 15 categories of KENO V.a models are 0.00020 ± 0.00011 Δ k for MG calculations and 0.00011 ± 0.00005 Δ k for CE calculations. Similar comparisons in three categories using KENO-VI result in the largest differences for MG calculations: as 0.00004 ± 0.00003 Δ k , and -0.00002 ± 0.00003 Δ k for CE. The preliminary results also indicate that Shift is faster than KENO on a per particle basis, especially for fast spectrum systems. The uncertainty per history is also higher, however, so the Monte Carlo figure of merit is higher for KENO for thermal and intermediate spectrum systems. As expected, Shift generally has better speedup than KENO for parallel calculations, regardless of neutron energy spectrum.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗