Gaussian Process-Based Confidence Estimation for Hybrid System Falsification
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: 13047 LNCS, Page: 330-348
2021
- 5Citations
- 3Captures
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
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) are widely adopted in safety-critical domains, raising great demands on their quality assurance. However, the application of formal verification is limited due to the continuous dynamics of CPSs. Instead, simulation-based falsification, which aims at finding a counterexample to refute the system specification, is a more feasible and hence actively pursued approach. Falsification adopts an optimization approach, treating robustness, given by the quantitative semantics of the specification language (usually Signal Temporal Logic (STL)), as the objective function. However, similarly to traditional testing, in the absence of found counterexamples, falsification does not give any guarantee on the system safety. To fill this gap, in this paper, we propose a confidence measure that estimates the probability that a formal specification is indeed not falsifiable, by relying on the information encapsulated in the simulation data collected during falsification. Methodologically, we approximate the robustness domain by feeding simulation data into a Gaussian Process (GP) Regression process; we then do a minimization sampling on the trained GP, and then estimate the probability that all the robustness values inferred from these sampled points are positive; we take this probability as the confidence measure. We experimentally study the properties of monotonicity and soundness of the proposed confidence measure. We also apply the measure to several state-of-the-art falsification algorithms to assess the maximum confidence they provide when they do not find a falsifying input, and the stability of such confidence across different repetitions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85119833823&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_18; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_18; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_18; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_18; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-90870-6_18
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