skip to main content
article

Basic Formal Verification of aWaypoint Manager for Unmanned Air Vehicles in SPARK

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 April 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

As software becomes more complex, it becomes more difficult to verify its correctness. This poses a particular problem for autonomous systems, since they are software-intensive and will also require strong evidence of correctness in order to be allowed to operate in the real world. One way to help address this problem is through the use of formal methods, i.e. mathematically-based tools for software and hardware verification. In this paper, we perform formal program verification on a service in OpenUxAS, a free and open source software framework for mission-level, multi-vehicle autonomy. More specifically, we apply the SPARK language and verification toolset to a service that sanity-checks and segments long sequences of vehicle waypoints to prove that it is free of runtime errors.

References

  1. AdaCore. 2022. LEARN.ADACORE.COM. https://learn.adacore.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AFRL/RQQ. 2017. LmcpGen. https://github.com/afrl-rq/LmcpGenGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. AFRL/RQQ. 2017. OpenAMASE. https://github.com/afrl-rq/ OpenAMASEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. AFRL/RQQ. 2017. OpenUxAS. https://github.com/afrl-rq/OpenUxASGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M Anthony Aiello, Claire Dross, Patrick Rogers, Laura Humphrey, and James Hamil. 2019. Practical application of SPARK to OpenUxAS. In International Symposium on Formal Methods. Springer, 751--761.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John Barnes. 2014. Programming in Ada 2012. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Zachry Basnight, Steven Rasmussen, Alex Starr, Matthew Duquette, and Krishnamoorthy Kalyanam. 2012. Simulating cooperative control algorithms using MATLAB, Simulink, and AMASE. In AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference. AIAA, 8359.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthew L Bolton, Elliot Biltekoff, and Laura Humphrey. 2021. The level of measurement of subjective situation awareness and Its dimensions in the Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART). IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. W. Dahm. 2010. Report on Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science & Technology During 2010--2030. Technical Report AF/ST-TR- 10-01-PR. United States Air Force.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennifer A Davis, Laura R Humphrey, and Derek B Kingston. 2019. When human intuition fails: Using formal methods to find an error in the 'proof' of a multi-agent protocol. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). Springer, 366--375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Matthew Duquette. 2011. The common mission automation services interface. In [email protected]. AIAA, 1542.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Trevor Elliott, Mohammed Alshiekh, Laura R Humphrey, Lee Pike, and Ufuk Topcu. 2019. Salty -- A domain specific language for GR (1) specifications and designs. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 4545--4551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jean-Christophe Filliâtre and Andrei Paskevich. 2013. Why3 -- Where programs meet provers. In European Symposium on Programming (ESOP). Springer, 125--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. David Greve, Jennifer Davis, and Laura Humphrey. 2022. A mechanized proof of bounded convergence time for the Distributed Perimeter Surveillance System (DPSS) Algorithm A. In 17th ACL2 Workshop (Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS) 359), Rob Sumners and Cuong Chau (Eds.). 33--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pieter Hintjens. 2013. ZeroMQ. O'Reilly Media Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. iMatix Corporation. 2015. Zyre. https://github.com/zeromq/zyreGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nidhi Kalra and Susan M Paddock. 2016. Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 94 (2016), 182--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Derek Kingston, Steven Rasmussen, and Laura Humphrey. 2016. Automated UAV tasks for search and surveillance. In International Conference on Control Applications (CCA). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. John W McCormick and Peter C Chapin. 2015. Building high integrity applications with SPARK. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yannick Moy. 2019. Climbing the software assurance ladder -- Practical formal verification for reliable software. Electronic Communications of the EASST 76 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Luan V Nguyen, Bardh Hoxha, Taylor T Johnson, and Georgios Fainekos. 2018. Mission planning for multiple vehicles with temporal specifications using UxAS. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 16 (2018), 67--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Steven Rasmussen, Derek Kingston, and Laura Humphrey. 2018. A brief introduction to Unmanned Systems Autonomy Services (UxAS). In International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 257--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Cumhur Erkan Tuncali, Bardh Hoxha, Guohui Ding, Georgios Fainekos, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2018. Experience report: Application of falsification methods on the UxAS system. In NASA Formal Methods Symposium. Springer, 452--459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. JiajunWei, Matthew L Bolton, and Laura Humphrey. 2020. The level of measurement of trust in automation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 22, 3 (2020), 274--295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!