A Runtime Risk Assessment Concept for Safe Reconfiguration in Open Adaptive Systems

Bhardwaj, Nikita; Liggesmeyer, Peter

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66284-8_26

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4) into a CTMC works via a translation into a probabilistic guarded command 6 program (Listing 1). From this program, a probabilistic model checker can derive a CTMC M that formalises the semantics of the activity chart, allowing the processing in the two channels to be non-deterministically concurrent, 7 finally synchronising on the vote action. This type of concurrency enables us to encode assumptions about the processing speed in the two channels independently and flexibly.…”

Section: Step 4 Hr Od For the 2oo2-od Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…with an action 𝑎, a guard 𝑔, and probabilistic multipleassignments 𝑢 𝑖 𝑗 applied with rate 𝜆 𝑖 . 7 Each of the timed synchronised interleavings of the four sequential components in Fig. 4 carries information about the expected time of occurrence of events and, thus, the accumulated expected duration of a particular interleaving.…”

Section: Step 4 Hr Od For the 2oo2-od Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) Sensor/perceptor components using different technologies and diverse implementations are fused to ensure failure detection on the one hand and fault tolerance to increase the reliability on the other hand [16]. (2) The safety integrity is not only established once and for all at type certification time, but also monitored continuously at runtime, so that systems may adapt to the current risk of inadequate situation awareness by transiting into degraded operational modes [7,16,23]. While this overall approach has been intensively studied by many authors (see also references given in [16]), it does not cover the questions concerning the trustworthiness of single sensor/perceptor configurations: (a) at type certification time, a quantitative risk assessment needs to be provided for each of these components, because sensors/perceptors can only be admitted to participate in a fused configuration if their reliability is better than a tolerable minimum.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of an Obstacle Detection System for GoA 4 Freight Trains

Gleirscher,

Haxthausen,

Peleska

2023

Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a quantitative risk assessment approach for the design of an obstacle detection function for low-speed freight trains with grade of automation 4. In this five-step approach, starting with single detection channels and ending with a three-out-of-three model constructed of three independent dual-channel modules and a voter, we exemplify a probabilistic assessment, using a combination of statistical methods and parametric stochastic model checking. We illustrate that, under certain not unreasonable assumptions, the resulting hazard rate becomes acceptable for specific application settings. The statistical approach for assessing the residual risk of misclassifications in convolutional neural networks and conventional image processing software suggests that high confidence can be placed into the safety-critical obstacle detection function, even though its implementation involves realistic machine learning uncertainties.

show abstract

Section: Step 4 Hr Od For the 2oo2-od Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Step 4 Hr Od For the 2oo2-od Modulementioning

confidence: 99%