Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering Approaches and Methods to Verify Software in Autonomous Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 302))

Abstract

We present three computer-augmented software engineering approaches to ensure dependability at different levels of control architectures in autonomous robots. For each approach, we outline the methodological framework, our current achievements, and open issues. Albeit our results are still preliminary, we believe that furthering research along these lines can provide cost-effective techniques to make autonomous robots safe and thus fit for commercial purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Experiments with ESBMC are performed on an Intel Core i7-3770 quad core at 3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM, equipped with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS 64 bit.

  2. 2.

    Notice that most of the overall time is spent in network communication between the learner and system wrapper, in resetting the system, and other overhead tasks; less that 1 % of time was actually needed for the “learning algorithm”. All the identification experiments have been carried out on a Dell laptop with Core2Duo 2.53GHz CPU and 4GB of RAM on Ubuntu 12.04.

  3. 3.

    This behavior is the default because in the implementation of control loops it is preferable to reduce the communication latency at the cost of dropping (late) packets.

  4. 4.

    [0, 1] denotes a closed subinterval of \(\mathbb {R}\), i.e., every \(x \in \mathbb {R}\) such that \(0 \le x \le 1\).

  5. 5.

    Table T can handle (i) deterministic actions, i.e., a is such that \(\forall s \in S. |T(s,a)|=1\); (ii) nondeterministic actions, i.e.,a is such that for all \(s \in S\), both \(|T(s,a)| = k\) and \(n_i=1/k\) for all \(1 \le i \le k\); and (iii) probabilistic actions, i.e., arbitrary values of \(n_i\).

  6. 6.

    The radius \(\rho \) is not needed because we keep it fixed throughout learning and simulation. In a pure defense play, this choice does not hamper the robot’s ability to defend the goal area.

  7. 7.

    Simulation and learning are performed on an Intel Core i5-480M quad core at 2.67 GHz with 4GB RAM, equipped with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS 64 bit.

  8. 8.

    Verification and repair are performed on a Intel Core i3-2330M quad core at 2.20 GHz with similar RAM and OS. Verification of policies is carried out with state-of-the-art probabilistic model checkers, namely comics [29] (version 1.0), mrmc [30] (version 1.4.1), and prism [31] (version 4.0.3). All tools are run in their default configuration with the exception of comics, for which the option –concrete is selected instead of the default –abstract.

  9. 9.

    mrmc does not implement counterexample generation, and in prism this is still a beta-stage feature.

References

  1. M. Bajracharya, M. Maimone, and D. Helmick. Autonomy for mars rovers: Past, present, and future. Computer, 41(12):44–50, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Beetz, U. Klank, I. Kresse, A. Maldonado, L. Mosenlechner, D. Pangercic, T. Ruhr, and M. Tenorth. Robotic roommates making pancakes. In Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on, pages 529–536. IEEE, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Pratt and J. Manzo. The DARPA Robotics Challenge [Competitions]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 20(2):10–12, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Belta, A. Bicchi, M. Egerstedt, E. Frazzoli, E. Klavins, and G.J. Pappas. Symbolic planning and control of robot motion [grand challenges of robotics]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 14(1):61–70, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Jhala and R. Majumdar. Software model checking. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41(4):21, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Scherer, F. Lerda, and E. M. Clarke. Model checking of robotic control systems. In Proceedings of ISAIRAS 2005 Conference, pages 5–8, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Shahbaz. Reverse Engineering Enhanced State Models of Black Box Software Components to Support Integration Testing. PhD thesis, Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Khalili and A. Tacchella. AIDE: Automata-Identification Engine. http://aide.codeplex.com.

  9. P. Fitzpatrick, G. Metta, and L. Natale. Towards long-lived robot genes. Robotics and Autonomous systems, 56(1):29–45, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.S. Sutton and A.G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning - An Introduction. MIT Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.A. Bagnell and S. Schaal. Special issue on Machine Learning in Robotics (Editorial). The International Journal of Robotics Research, 27(2):155–156, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.H. Gillula and C.J. Tomlin. Guaranteed Safe Online Learning via Reachability: tracking a ground target using a quadrotor. In ICRA, pages 2723–2730, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker. Stochastic model checking. Formal methods for performance evaluation, pages 220–270, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rudolf Emil Kalman et al. Contributions to the theory of optimal control. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana, 5(2):102–119, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. Lancaster and L. Rodman. Algebraic riccati equations. Oxford University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. MATLAB. version 8.1.0 (R2013a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Cordeiro, B. Fischer, and J. Marques-Silva. SMT-Based Bounded Model Checking for Embedded ANSI-C Software. Int.l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, pages 137–148, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N. Mohamed, J. Al-Jaroodi, and I. Jawhar. Middleware for robotics: A survey. In Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics, 2008 IEEE Conference on, pages 736–742. IEEE, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Metta, L. Natale, F. Nori, G. Sandini, D. Vernon, L. Fadiga, C. von Hofsten, K. Rosander, M. Lopes, J. Santos-Victor, et al. The iCub Humanoid Robot: An Open-Systems Platform for Research in Cognitive Development. Neural networks: the official journal of the International Neural Network Society, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Y. Ng. ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System. In ICRA workshop on open source software, volume 3, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Angluin. Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Information and computation, 75(2):87–106, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Gargantini. Conformance testing. Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems, pages 87–111, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  23. O. Niese. An integrated approach to testing complex systems. PhD thesis, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany, December 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. Aarts and F. Vaandrager. Learning I/O automata. CONCUR 2010-Concurrency Theory, pages 71–85, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Khalili and A. Tacchella. Learning nondeterministic Mealy machines. Technical report, University of Genoa, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. D. C. Bentivegna, C. G. Atkeson A. Ude, and G. Cheng. Learning to Act from Observation and Practice. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1(4), December 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. Metta, L. Natale, S. Pathak, L. Pulina, and A. Tacchella. Safe and effective learning: A case study. In ICRA, pages 4809–4814, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Pathak, L. Pulina, G. Metta, and A. Tacchella. Ensuring safety of policies learned by reinforcement: Reaching objects in the presence of obstacles with the iCub. In IROS, pages 170–175, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  29. E. Abrahám, N. Jansen, R. Wimmer, J. Katoen, and B. Becker. DTMC model checking by SCC reduction. In Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST), 2010 Seventh International Conference on the, pages 37–46. IEEE, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J.P. Katoen, I.S. Zapreev, E.M. Hahn, H. Hermanns, and D.N. Jansen. The ins and outs of the probabilistic model checker MRMC. Performance evaluation, 68(2):90–104, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker. Prism: Probabilistic symbolic model checker. Computer Performance Evaluation: Modelling Techniques and Tools, pages 113–140, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  32. L. Pulina and A. Tacchella. An Abstraction-Refinement Approach to Verification of Artificial Neural Networks. In 22nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2010), volume 6174 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 243–257. Springer, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  33. X.C. Ding, S.L. Smith, C. Belta, and D. Rus. MDP optimal control under temporal logic constraints. In Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), 2011 50th IEEE Conference on, pages 532–538. IEEE, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. iCub Facility, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), Via Morego, 30, 16163, Genova, Italy

    A. Khalili, G. Metta, L. Natale & S. Pathak

  2. DIBRIS, Università degli Studi di Genova, Via Opera Pia, 13, 16145, Genova, Italy

    G. Cicala, A. Khalili, S. Pathak & A. Tacchella

  3. POLCOMING, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Viale Mancini 5, 07100, Sassari, Italy

    L. Pulina

Authors
  1. G. Cicala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Khalili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Metta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Natale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Pulina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Tacchella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Tacchella .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Emanuele Menegatti

  2. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Nathan Michael

  3. Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Arbeitsgruppe Robotersysteme, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Karsten Berns

  4. Integrated Information Technology, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroaki Yamaguchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cicala, G. et al. (2016). Engineering Approaches and Methods to Verify Software in Autonomous Systems. In: Menegatti, E., Michael, N., Berns, K., Yamaguchi, H. (eds) Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 302. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08338-4_121

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08338-4_121

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08337-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08338-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation