SACC - A property driven approach to expose undesired behaviors among system’s components

In recent years, there has been an increase in automation of safety critical systems such as self-driving cars, caretaking robots, or rescue drones. With increase in automation, the risk of systems behaving in an undesired manner has also risen. Most safety analysis approaches predominantly concentrate on identifying or assessing how the failure of a component can affect the behavior of a system based on the system’s requirements. Yet, undesired behaviors can also occur when multiple components concurrently exert opposite effects on a shared resource. To identify safety-critical issues due to undesired concurrent component behaviors, we propose a property-driven approach called safety assessment for concurrent components (SACC). SACC uses a combinatorial technique that considers the requirements specification of a system, expressed as the states and properties of the system’s components for identifying undesired combinations of component behaviors. To evaluate SACC, we performed a study using a requirements document on a caretaking robot. Our results show that SACC identified 38%-80% more undesired system behaviors when compared to the control techniques.

[1]  Nataliya Yakymets,et al.  Model-Based Engineering, Safety Analysis and Risk Assessment for Personal Care Robots , 2018, 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[2]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Hazard Relation Diagrams: a diagrammatic representation to increase validation objectivity of requirements-based hazard mitigations , 2017, Requirements Engineering.

[3]  Jean-Luc Voirin,et al.  MBSE and MBSA with Capella and Safety Architect Tools , 2016, CSDM.

[4]  João Pimentel,et al.  piStar Tool – A Pluggable Online Tool for Goal Modeling , 2018, 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[5]  Javier Esparza,et al.  Reachability Analysis of Pushdown Automata: Application to Model-Checking , 1997, CONCUR.

[6]  Joost-Pieter Katoen,et al.  The COMPASS Approach: Correctness, Modelling and Performability of Aerospace Systems , 2009, SAFECOMP.

[7]  Gerasimos Theotokatos,et al.  Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: A comprehensive review , 2019, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[8]  Jeff Yu Lei,et al.  ACTS: A Combinatorial Test Generation Tool , 2013, 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation.

[9]  Hyunsook Do,et al.  Exposing the susceptibility of off-nominal behaviors in reactive system requirements , 2015, 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[10]  Tiedo Tinga,et al.  Improving failure analysis efficiency by combining FTA and FMEA in a recursive manner , 2018, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Keith W. Miller,et al.  Self-Driving Cars and Engineering Ethics: The Need for a System Level Analysis , 2019, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[12]  Nelly Bencomo,et al.  A Goal-Based Modeling Approach to Develop Requirements of an Adaptive System with Environmental Uncertainty , 2009, MoDELS.

[13]  Majid Mirmehdi,et al.  Real-Time Detection and Recognition of Road Traffic Signs , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[14]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Reasoning with Goal Models , 2002, ER.

[15]  K. Onodera,et al.  Effective techniques of FMEA at each life-cycle stage , 1997, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium.

[16]  Marco Bozzano,et al.  Safety assessment of AltaRica models via symbolic model checking , 2015, Sci. Comput. Program..

[17]  Gurvinder S. Virk,et al.  ISO 13482 - The new safety standard for personal care robots , 2014, ISR 2014.

[18]  Mariëlle Stoelinga,et al.  Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools , 2014, Comput. Sci. Rev..

[19]  H. Schneider Failure mode and effect analysis : FMEA from theory to execution , 1996 .

[20]  Fergal McCaffery,et al.  A roadmap to ISO 14971 implementation , 2015, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

[21]  Constance L. Heitmeyer,et al.  SCR*: A Toolset for Specifying and Analyzing Software Requirements , 1998, CAV.

[22]  Marian Daun,et al.  View-Centric Context Modeling to Foster the Engineering of Cyber-Physical System Networks , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA).

[23]  Marco Pistore,et al.  NuSMV 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking , 2002, CAV.

[24]  Jeff Yu Lei,et al.  IPOG: A General Strategy for T-Way Software Testing , 2007, 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'07).

[25]  Vincenzo Lippiello,et al.  Mixed-Initiative Planning and Execution for Multiple Drones in Search and Rescue Missions , 2015, ICAPS.

[26]  Hyunsook Do,et al.  A Combinatorial Approach for Exposing Off-Nominal Behaviors , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[27]  Nancy G. Leveson,et al.  Safety Analysis in Early Concept Development and Requirements Generation , 2018, INCOSE International Symposium.

[28]  Thorsten Weyer,et al.  Generation of hazard relation diagrams: formalization and tool support , 2020, Software and Systems Modeling.

[29]  Sébastien Gérard,et al.  SOPHIA: a Modeling Language for Model-Based Safety Engineering , 2009, ACES-MB@MoDELS.

[30]  Roger Bemelmans,et al.  Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. , 2012, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[31]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  A Graph-Based Fault Identification and Propagation Framework for Functional Design of Complex Systems , 2008 .

[32]  Andrew Kennedy,et al.  Modeling Off-Nominal Behavior in SysML , 2012, Infotech@Aerospace.