Skip to main content

SOTER on ROS: A Run-Time Assurance Framework on the Robot Operating System

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Runtime Verification (RV 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 12399))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present an implementation of SOTER, a run-time assurance framework for building safe distributed mobile robotic (DMR) systems, on top of the Robot Operating System (ROS). The safety of DMR systems cannot always be guaranteed at design time, especially when complex, off-the-shelf components are used that cannot be verified easily. SOTER addresses this by providing a language-based approach for run-time assurance for DMR systems. SOTER implements the reactive robotic software using the language P, a domain-specific language designed for implementing asynchronous event-driven systems, along with an integrated run-time assurance system that allows programmers to use unfortified components but still provide safety guarantees. We describe an implementation of SOTER for ROS and demonstrate its efficacy using a multi-robot surveillance case study, with multiple run-time assurance modules. Through rigorous simulation, we show that SOTER enabled systems ensure safety, even when using unknown and untrusted components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.ros.org.

References

  1. Desai, A., Dreossi, T., Seshia, S.A.: Combining model checking and runtime verification for safe robotics. In: Lahiri, S., Reger, G. (eds.) RV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10548, pp. 172–189. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67531-2_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Desai, A., Ghosh, S., Seshia, S.A., Shankar, N., Tiwari, A.: SOTER: a runtime assurance framework for programming safe robotics systems. In: 49th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2019, Portland, OR, USA, June 24–27, 2019, pp. 138–150. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/DSN.2019.00027

  3. Desai, A., Gupta, V., Jackson, E.K., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.K., Zufferey, D.: P: safe asynchronous event-driven programming. In: Boehm, H., Flanagan, C. (eds.) ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’13, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16–19, 2013, pp. 321–332. ACM (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2491956.2462184

  4. Desai, A., Saha, I., Yang, J., Qadeer, S., Seshia, S.A.: DRONA: a framework for safe distributed mobile robotics. In: Martínez, S., Tovar, E., Gill, C., Sinopoli, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2017, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, April 18–20, 2017, pp. 239–248. ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3055004.3055022

  5. Hofmann, A.G., Williams, B.C.: Robust execution of temporally flexible plans for bipedal walking devices. In: Long, D., Smith, S.F., Borrajo, D., McCluskey, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2006, Cumbria, UK, June 6–10, 2006, pp. 386–389. AAAI (2006). http://www.aaai.org/Library/ICAPS/2006/icaps06-047.php

  6. Huang, J., et al.: ROSRV: runtime verification for robots. In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 247–254. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim, M., Viswanathan, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Java-mac: a run-time assurance approach for java programs. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 24(2), 129–155 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FORM.0000017719.43755.7c

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Masson, L., Guiochet, J., Waeselynck, H., Cabrera, K., Cassel, S., Törngren, M.: Tuning permissiveness of active safety monitors for autonomous systems. In: Dutle, A., Muñoz, C., Narkawicz, A. (eds.) NFM 2018. LNCS, vol. 10811, pp. 333–348. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77935-5_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitsch, S., Platzer, A.: ModelPlex: verified runtime validation of verified cyber-physical system models. In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 199–214. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Pettersson, O.: Execution monitoring in robotics: a survey. Robot. Auton. Syst. 53(2), 73–88 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.004

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Phan, D., et al.: A component-based simplex architecture for high-assurance cyber-physical systems. In: 17th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, ACSD 2017, Zaragoza, Spain, June 25–30, 2017, pp. 49–58. IEEE Computer Society (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSD.2017.23

  12. Phan, D.T., Grosu, R., Jansen, N., Paoletti, N., Smolka, S.A., Stoller, S.D.: Neural simplex architecture. In: Lee, R., Jha, S., Mavridou, A. (eds.) NFM 2020. LNCS, vol. 12229, pp. 97–114. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55754-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Schierman, J.D., et al.: Runtime assurance framework development for highly adaptive flight control systems (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Seshia, S.A.: Introspective environment modeling. In: 19th International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV), pp. 15–26 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seshia, S.A., Sadigh, D., Sastry, S.S.: Towards verified artificial intelligence. ArXiv e-prints, July 2016

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sha, L.: Using simplicity to control complexity. IEEE Softw. 18(4), 20–28 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2001.936213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sucan, I.A., Moll, M., Kavraki, L.E.: The open motion planning library. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(4), 72–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2205651

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by NSF grant CNS-1545126, the DARPA Assured Autonomy program, Berkeley Deep Drive, and by the iCyPhy center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hazem Torfah .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Shivakumar, S., Torfah, H., Desai, A., Seshia, S.A. (2020). SOTER on ROS: A Run-Time Assurance Framework on the Robot Operating System. In: Deshmukh, J., Ničković, D. (eds) Runtime Verification. RV 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12399. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60508-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60508-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60507-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60508-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics