Compositional Verification for Autonomous Systems with Deep Learning Components

As autonomy becomes prevalent in many applications, ranging from recommendation systems to fully autonomous vehicles, there is an increased need to provide safety guarantees for such systems. The problem is difficult, as these are large, complex systems which operate in uncertain environments, requiring data-driven machine-learning components. However, learning techniques such as Deep Neural Networks, widely used today, are inherently unpredictable and lack the theoretical foundations to provide strong assurance guarantees. We present a compositional approach for the scalable, formal verification of autonomous systems that contain Deep Neural Network components. The approach uses assume-guarantee reasoning whereby {\em contracts}, encoding the input-output behavior of individual components, allow the designer to model and incorporate the behavior of the learning-enabled components working side-by-side with the other components. We illustrate the approach on an example taken from the autonomous vehicles domain

Requirements Analysis of a Quad-Redundant Flight Control System

In this paper we detail our effort to formalize and prove requirements for the Quad-redundant Flight Control System (QFCS) within NASA's Transport Class Model (TCM). We use a compositional approach with assume-guarantee contracts that correspond to the requirements for software components embedded in an AADL system architecture model. This approach is designed to exploit the verification effort and artifacts that are already part of typical software verification processes in the avionics domain. Our approach is supported by an AADL annex that allows specification of contracts along with a tool, called AGREE, for performing compositional verification. The goal of this paper is to show the benefits of a compositional verification approach applied to a realistic avionics system and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the AGREE tool in performing this analysis.Comment: Accepted to NASA Formal Methods 201

Baseline Assessment and Prioritization Framework for IVHM Integrity Assurance Enabling Capabilities

Fundamental to vehicle health management is the deployment of systems incorporating advanced technologies for predicting and detecting anomalous conditions in highly complex and integrated environments. Integrated structural integrity health monitoring, statistical algorithms for detection, estimation, prediction, and fusion, and diagnosis supporting adaptive control are examples of advanced technologies that present considerable verification and validation challenges. These systems necessitate interactions between physical and software-based systems that are highly networked with sensing and actuation subsystems, and incorporate technologies that are, in many respects, different from those employed in civil aviation today. A formidable barrier to deploying these advanced technologies in civil aviation is the lack of enabling verification and validation tools, methods, and technologies. The development of new verification and validation capabilities will not only enable the fielding of advanced vehicle health management systems, but will also provide new assurance capabilities for verification and validation of current generation aviation software which has been implicated in anomalous in-flight behavior. This paper describes the research focused on enabling capabilities for verification and validation underway within NASA s Integrated Vehicle Health Management project, discusses the state of the art of these capabilities, and includes a framework for prioritizing activities

Formal Modeling of Connectionism using Concurrency Theory, an Approach Based on Automata and Model Checking

This paper illustrates a framework for applying formal methods techniques, which are symbolic in nature, to specifying and verifying neural networks, which are sub-symbolic in nature. The paper describes a communicating automata [Bowman & Gomez, 2006] model of neural networks. We also implement the model using timed automata [Alur & Dill, 1994] and then undertake a verification of these models using the model checker Uppaal [Pettersson, 2000] in order to evaluate the performance of learning algorithms. This paper also presents discussion of a number of broad issues concerning cognitive neuroscience and the debate as to whether symbolic processing or connectionism is a suitable representation of cognitive systems. Additionally, the issue of integrating symbolic techniques, such as formal methods, with complex neural networks is discussed. We then argue that symbolic verifications may give theoretically well-founded ways to evaluate and justify neural learning systems in the field of both theoretical research and real world applications

Collaborative Verification-Driven Engineering of Hybrid Systems

Hybrid systems with both discrete and continuous dynamics are an important model for real-world cyber-physical systems. The key challenge is to ensure their correct functioning w.r.t. safety requirements. Promising techniques to ensure safety seem to be model-driven engineering to develop hybrid systems in a well-defined and traceable manner, and formal verification to prove their correctness. Their combination forms the vision of verification-driven engineering. Often, hybrid systems are rather complex in that they require expertise from many domains (e.g., robotics, control systems, computer science, software engineering, and mechanical engineering). Moreover, despite the remarkable progress in automating formal verification of hybrid systems, the construction of proofs of complex systems often requires nontrivial human guidance, since hybrid systems verification tools solve undecidable problems. It is, thus, not uncommon for development and verification teams to consist of many players with diverse expertise. This paper introduces a verification-driven engineering toolset that extends our previous work on hybrid and arithmetic verification with tools for (i) graphical (UML) and textual modeling of hybrid systems, (ii) exchanging and comparing models and proofs, and (iii) managing verification tasks. This toolset makes it easier to tackle large-scale verification tasks