Vehicle safety depends on (a) the range of identified hazards and (b) the operational situations for which mitigations of these hazards are acceptably decreasing risk. Moreover, with an increasing degree of autonomy, risk ownership is likely to increase for vendors towards regulatory certification. Hence, highly automated vehicles have to be equipped with verified controllers capable of reliably identifying and mitigating hazards in all possible operational situations. To this end, available methods for the design and verification of automated vehicle controllers have to be supported by models for hazard analysis and mitigation.
G "udemann and Ortmeier @cite_7 present a language for probabilistic system modeling for safety analysis. Formalized as , they propose two ways of failure mode modeling ( per-time and per-demand failure modes), and two ways of deductive cause consequence reasoning ( quantitative and qualitative). Their model and reasoning can extend our approach. However, our work (i) adds stronger guidelines on how to build planning models and (ii) puts hazard analysis into the context of autonomous systems and mitigation planning.
@cite_7
2118864410
Lessons from safety-critical anomalies during operation provide important information for constructing safer systems. To assist anomaly analysis, this research develops an integrated Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) model to analyze causal scenarios and a Three-Frame Mode model to analyze the working mode inconsistencies of failure cases. The models are used to analyze 180 digital Instrumentation and Control (IC therefore, recovery should be emphasized and planned. In model-based safety analysis both qualitative aspects i.e. what must go wrong for a system failure) and quantitative aspects (i.e. how probable is a system failure) are very important. For both aspects methods and tools are available. However, until now for each aspect new and independent models must be built for analysis. This paper proposes the SAML framework as a formal foundation for both qualitative and quantitative formal model-based safety analysis. The main advantage of SAML is the combination of qualitative and quantitative formal semantics which allows different analyses on the same model. This increases the confidence in the analysis results, simplifies modeling and is less error-prone. The SAML framework is tool-independent. As proof-of-concept, we present sound transformation of the formalism into two state of the art model-checking notations. Prototypical tool support for the sound transformation of SAML into PRISM and MRMC for probabilistic analysis as well as different variants of the SMV model checker for qualitative analysis is currently being developed. In component-based safety-critical real-time systems it is crucial to determine which component(s) caused the violation of a required system-level safety property, be it to issue a precise alert, or to determine liability of component providers. In this paper we present an approach for blaming in real-time systems whose component specifications are given as timed automata. The analysis is based on a single execution trace violating a safety property P. We formalize blaming using counterfactual reasoning ("what would have been the outcome if component C had behaved correctly?") to distinguish component failures that actually contributed to the outcome from failures that had no impact on the violation of P. We then show how to effectively implement blaming by reducing it to a model-checking problem for timed automata, and demonstrate the feasibility of our approach on the models of a pacemaker and of a chemical reactor. We propose the use of explicit proof plans to guide the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. By representing proof plans as the specifications of LCF-like tactics, [ 79], and by recording these specifications in a sorted meta-logic, we are able to reason about the conjectures to be proved and the methods available to prove them. In this way we can build proof plans of wide generality, formally account for and predict their successes and failures, apply them flexibly, recover from their failures, and learn them from example proofs.