Integrating Formal Verification and Assurance: An Inspection Rover Case Study
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: 12673 LNCS, Page: 53-71
2021
- 20Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
The complexity and flexibility of autonomous robotic systems necessitates a range of distinct verification tools. This presents new challenges not only for design verification but also for assurance approaches. Combining the distinct formal verification tools, while maintaining sufficient formal coherence to provide compelling assurance evidence is difficult, often being abandoned for less formal approaches. In this paper we demonstrate, through a case study, how a variety of distinct formal techniques can be brought together in order to develop a justifiable assurance case. We use the AdvoCATE assurance case tool to guide our analyses and to integrate the artifacts from the formal methods that we use, namely: fret, cocosim and Event-B. While we present our methodology as applied to a specific Inspection Rover case study, we believe that this combination provides benefits in maintaining coherent formal links across development and assurance processes for a wide range of autonomous robotic systems.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111308973&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76384-8_4; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-76384-8_4; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-76384-8_4; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76384-8_4; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-76384-8_4
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know