Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verification of Autonomous Robots: A Roboticist’s Bottom-Up Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Software Engineering for Robotics

  • 2244 Accesses

Abstract

Autonomous robots may one day be allowed to fly or to drive around in large numbers, but this will require their makers and programmers to show that the most critical parts of their software are robust and reliable. Moreover, autonomous robots embed onboard deliberation functions. This is what makes them autonomous but open for new challenges. There are many approaches to consider for the V&V of AR software, e.g. write high-level specifications and derive them through correct implementation, deploy and develop new or modified V&V formalisms to program robotics components, etc. One should note that learned models aside, most models used in deliberation functions are already amenable to formal V&V. Thus, we rather focus on functional-level components or modules and propose an approach that relies on an existing robotics specification and implementation framework (Gen oM), in which we harness existing well-known formal V&V frameworks (UPPAAL, BIP, FIACRE-TINA). Gen oM was originally developed by roboticists and software engineers who wanted to clearly and precisely specify how a reusable, portable, middleware-independent, functional component should be specified and implemented. As a result, Gen oM has a rigorous specification and a clear semantics of the implementation, and it provides a template mechanism to synthesize code that opens the door to automatic formal-model synthesis and formal V&V (offline and online). This bottom-up approach, which starts from components implementation, is more modest than top-down ones which aim at a larger and more global view of the problem. Yet, it gives encouraging results on real implementations on which one can build more complex high-level properties to be then verified and validated offline but also with online monitors.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Y. Abdeddaim, E. Asarin, M. Gallien, F. Ingrand, C. Lesire, M. Sighireanu, Planning robust temporal plans: A comparison between CBTP and TGA approaches, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2007). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00157935

  2. T. Abdellatif, J. Combaz, J. Sifakis, Model-based implementation of real-time applications, in International Conference on Embedded Software (2010). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1879052

  3. D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, D. Mané, Concrete Problems in AI Safety (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565v2

  4. B.D. Argall, S. Chernova, M.M. Veloso, B. Browning, A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Rob. Auton. Syst. 57(5), 469–483 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. G. Bardaro, A. Semprebon, M. Matteucci,A use case in model-based robot development using AADL and ROS, in ACM/IEEE Workshop on Robotics Software Engineering (ACM Press, New York, 2018), pp. 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10783-7_13. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3196558.3196560

  6. G. Behrmann, A. David, K.G. Larsen, A Tutorial on Uppaal 4.0. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Denmark (2006). https://www.uppaal.com/uppaal-tutorial.pdf

  7. S. Ben Rayana, M. Bozga, S. Bensalem, J. Combaz, RTD-finder - A tool for compositional verification of real-time component-based systems, in International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (2016). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_23

  8. S. Bensalem, L. de Silva, F. Ingrand, R. Yan, A verifiable and correct-by-construction controller for robot functional levels. J. Softw. Eng. Rob. 1(2), 1–19 (2011). http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0221v1

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Bensalem, K. Havelund, A. Orlandini, Verification and validation meet planning and scheduling. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Trans. 16(1), 1–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-013-0294-x. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10009-013-0294-x

  10. A. Benveniste, G. Berry, The synchronous approach to reactive and real-time systems. Proc. IEEE 79(9), 1270–1282 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Benveniste, P. Caspi, S. Edwards, N. Halbwachs, P. Le Guernic, R. de Simone, The synchronous languages 12 years later. Proc. IEEE 91, 64–83 (2003). https://dblp.org/rec/journals/pieee/BenvenisteCEHGS03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. B. Berthomieu, M. Diaz, Modeling and verification of time-dependent systems using time petri nets. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(3), 259–273 (1991). http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=mekentosj&SrcApp=Papers&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS&KeyUT=A1991FE66100005

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. B. Berthomieu, J.P. Bodeveix, P. Farail, M. Filali, H. Garavel, P. Gaufillet, F. Lang, F. Vernadat, Fiacre: An intermediate language for model verification in the topcased environment, in Embedded Real-Time Software and Systems, HAL - CCSD, Toulouse (2008). http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/26/24/42/PDF/Berthomieu-Bodeveix-Farail-et-al-08.pdf

  14. D. Bjørner, K. Havelund,40 Years of Formal Methods - Some Obstacles and Some Possibilities? FM (2014). https://dblp.org/rec/conf/fm/BjornerH14

  15. J. Bohren, S. Cousins, The SMACH high-level executive. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 17(4), 18–20 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2010.938836. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=5663871

  16. F. Boussinot, R. de Simone, The ESTEREL language. Proc. IEEE 79 , 1293–1304 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D. Brugali, Model-Driven Software Engineering in Robotics. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 22(3), 155–166 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2015.2452201. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=7254324

  18. H. Bruyninckx, Open robot control software: The OROCOS project, in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. Cassez, C. Pagetti, O.H. Roux, A timed extension for ALTARICA. Fundam. Inform. 62, 291–332 (2004). https://dblp.org/rec/journals/fuin/CassezPR04

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Cavalcanti, Formal methods for robotics: RoboChart, RoboSim, and more, in Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017), pp. 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592434.1592436. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_1

  21. G. Cicala, A. Khalili, G. Metta, L. Natale, S. Pathak, L. Pulina, A. Tacchella, Engineering approaches and methods to verify software in autonomous systems, in International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (2016).http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-08338-4_121

  22. J. Claßen, G. Röger, G. Lakemeyer, B. Nebel, Platas—integrating planning and the action language golog. KI-Künstliche Intell. 26(1), 61–67 (2012). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13218-011-0155-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. D. Come, J. Brunel, D. Doose, Improving code quality in ROS packages using a temporal extension of first-order logic, in IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IEEE, Piscataway, 2018), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRC.2018.00010. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8329874/

  24. H. Costelha, P.U. Lima, Robot task plan representation by Petri Nets: modelling, identification, analysis and execution. Auton. Rob. 33(4), 337–360 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1142/3376. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10514-012-9288-x

  25. S. Dal Zilio, B. Berthomieu, D. Le Botlan, Latency analysis of an aerial video tracking system using fiacre and tina, in FMTV Verification Challenge of WATERS 2015, LAAS-VERTICS (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06506v1

  26. A. David, K.G. Larsen, A. Legay, M. Mikučionis, D.B. Poulsen, UPPAAL SMC tutorial. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Trans. 17, 1–19 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0361-y. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0361-y

  27. A. Desai, T. Dreossi, S.A. Seshia, Combining model checking and runtime verification for safe robotics, in International Conference on Runtime Verification RV (2017). https://dblp.org/rec/conf/rv/DesaiDS17

  28. S. Dhouib, S. Kchir, S. Stinckwich,T. Ziadi, M. Ziane, RobotML, a domain-specific language to design, simulate and deploy robotic applications, in IEEE International Conference on Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots (2012). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-34327-8_16

  29. D. Doose, C. Grand, C. Lesire, MAUVE runtime: A component-based middleware to reconfigure software architectures in real-time, in IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IEEE, Piscataway, 2017), pp. 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRC.2017.47. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7926540/

  30. V. D’Silva, D. Kroening, G. Weissenbacher, A survey of automated techniques for formal software verification. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst. 27(7), 1165–1178 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2008.923410. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=4544862

  31. B. Espiau, K. Kapellos, M. Jourdan, Formal verification in robotics: Why and how?, in International Symposium on Robotics Research (1996). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.54.3091&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Google Scholar 

  32. P. Feth, M.N. Akram, R. Schuster, O. Wasenmüller, Dynamic Risk Assessment for Vehicles of Higher Automation Levels by Deep Learning (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07635v1

  33. M. Foughali, Formal Verification of the Functional Layer of Robotic and Autonomous Systems. PhD Thesis, LAAS/CNRS, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Foughali, B. Berthomieu, S. Dal Zilio, P.E. Hladik, F. Ingrand, A. Mallet, Formal verification of complex robotic systems on resource-constrained platforms, in FormaliSE @ The International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE (ACM Press, New York, 2018), pp. 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-0661(05)80435-9. https://hal.laas.fr/hal-01778960

  35. N. Gobillot, F. Guet, D. Doose, C. Grand, C. Lesire, L. Santinelli, Measurement-based real-time analysis of robotic software architectures, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IEEE, Piscataway, 2016), pp. 3306–3311. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2016.7759509. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7759509&contentType=Conference+Publications

  36. M. Guerra, D. Efimov, G. Zheng, W. Perruquetti, Avoiding local minima in the potential field method using input-to-state stability. Control Eng. Pract. 55(C), 174–184 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2016.07.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2016.07.008

  37. J. Guiochet, M. Machin, H. Waeselynck, Safety-critical advanced robots: A survey. Rob. Auton. Syst. 94, 43–52 (2017). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889016300768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. D. Hähnel, W. Burgard, G. Lakemeyer, GOLEX—bridging the gap between logic (GOLOG) and a real robot, in KI Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Springer, Berlin, 1998), pp. 165–176

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Halder, J. Proença, N. Macedo, A. Santos, Formal verification of ros-based robotic applications using timed-automata, in IEEE/ACM International FME Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE) (2017). https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icse/HalderPMS17

  40. M. Herrb, Pocolibs: POsix COmmunication LIbrary. Technical Report, LAAS-CNRS (1992). https://git.openrobots.org/projects/pocolibs/gollum/index

  41. P.E. Hladik, Hippo. Technical Report, LAAS-CNRS (2020). https://redmine.laas.fr/projects/genom3-fiacre-template/gollum/hippo

  42. J. Huang, C. Erdogan, Y. Zhang, B. Moore, Q. Luo, A. Sundaresan, G. Rosu, ROSRV: Runtime verification for robots, in Runtime Verification (Springer, Cham, 2014). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_20

    Google Scholar 

  43. G. Infantes, M. Ghallab, F. Ingrand, Learning the behavior model of a robot. Auton. Rob. 30, 1–21 (2010). https://homepages.laas.fr/felix/publis-pdf/arj10.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  44. F. Ingrand, M. Ghallab, Deliberation for autonomous robots: a survey. Artif. Intell. 247, 10–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.11.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.11.003

  45. A. Kai, K. Hölldobler, B. Rumpe, A. Wortmann, Modeling robotics software architectures with modular model transformations. J. Softw. Eng. Rob. 8(1), 3–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.6092/JOSER. https://www.google.com/

  46. J. Kober, J.A. Bagnell, J. Peters, Reinforcement learning in robotics: a survey. Int. J. Rob. Res. 32, (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364913495721. http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/22/0278364913495721.abstract

  47. P. Koopman, M. Wagner, Challenges in autonomous vehicle testing and validation. SAE Int. J. Trans. Safety 4(1), 15–24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0128. http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0128/

  48. D. Kortenkamp, R.G. Simmons, Robotic systems architectures and programming, in Handbook of Robotics, ed. by B. Siciliano, O. Khatib (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 187–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. H. Kress-Gazit, T. Wongpiromsarn, U. Topcu, Correct, reactive, high-level robot control. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 18(3), 65–74 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2011.942116. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6016593

  50. C. Lesire, F. Pommereau, ASPiC: An acting system based on skill petri net composition, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2018), pp. 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  51. H.J. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lesperance, F. Lin, R.B. Scherl, GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. Logic Program. 31(1), 59–83 (1997). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743106696001215

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. W. Li, A. Miyazawa, P. Ribeiro, A. Cavalcanti, J. Woodcock, J. Timmis, From formalised state machines to implementations of robotic controllers, in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  53. A. Lotz, A. Hamann, I. Lütkebohle, D. Stampfer, Modeling Non-Functional Application Domain Constraints for Component-Based Robotics Software Systems (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02379

  54. M. Luckcuck, M. Farrell, L. Dennis, C. Dixon, M. Fisher, Formal Specification and Verification of Autonomous Robotic Systems: A Survey (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.00048v1

  55. A. Mallet, C. Pasteur, M. Herrb, S. Lemaignan, F. Ingrand, GenoM3: Building middleware-independent robotic components, in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2010), pp. 4627–4632. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509539. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5509539

  56. W. Meng, J. Park, O. Sokolsky, S. Weirich, I. Lee, Verified ROS-based deployment of platform-independent control systems, in NASA Formal Methods (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), pp. 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_18. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_18

  57. A. Miyazawa, P. Ribeiro, W. Li, A. Cavalcanti, J. Timmis, Automatic property checking of robotic applications, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2017). http://dblp.org/rec/conf/iros/Miyazawa0LCT17

  58. C. Mühlbacher, S. Gspandl, M. Reip, G. Steinbauer, Improving dependability of industrial transport robots using model-based techniques, in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2016), pp. 3133–3140. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487480. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7487480

  59. A. Nordmann, N. Hochgeschwender, D. Wigand, S. Wrede, A survey on domain-specific modeling and languages in robotics. J. Softw. Eng. Rob. 7(1), 1–25 (2016). https://scholar.google.com/

    Google Scholar 

  60. M. Quigley, B. Gerkey, K. Conley, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, E. Berger, R. Wheeler, A.Y. Ng, ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System, in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  61. P. Ribeiro, A. Miyazawa, W. Li, A. Cavalcanti, J. Timmis, Modelling and Verification of Timed Robotic Controllers, in International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (2017). http://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifm/0002MLCT17

  62. K.Y. Rozier, Specification - The biggest bottleneck in formal methods and autonomy, in Verified Software: Theories, Tools, and Experiments (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_2

  63. Z. Saigol, Extending automotive certification processes to handle autonomous vehicles, in RoboSoft: Software Engineering for Robotics (Springer, Berlin, 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  64. C. Schlegel, Composition, separation of roles and model-driven approaches as enabler of a robotics software ecosystem, in RoboSoft: Software Engineering for Robotics (Springer, Berlin, 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  65. C. Schlegel, T. Hassler, A. Lotz, A. Steck, Robotic software systems: From code-driven to model-driven designs, in International Conference on Advanced Robotics (IEEE, Piscataway, 2009), pp. 1–8. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5174736

    Google Scholar 

  66. S.A. Seshia, D. Sadigh, S.S. Sastry, Towards Verified Artificial Intelligence (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08514v3

  67. R.G. Simmons, C. Pecheur, Automating model checking for autonomous systems, in AAAI Spring Symposium on Real-Time Autonomous Systems (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  68. D. Simon, R. Pissard-Gibollet, S. Arias, ORCCAD, a framework for safe robot control design and implementation, in Control Architecture for Robots (2006). https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00385258

  69. D. Socci, P. Poplavko, S. Bensalem, M. Bozga, Modeling mixed-critical systems in real-time BIP, in 1st Workshop on Real-Time Mixed Criticality Systems (2013). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00867465/

  70. A. Sorin, L. Morten, J. Kjeld, U.P. Schultz, Rule-based dynamic safety monitoring for mobile robots. J. Softw. Eng. Rob. 7(1), 120–141 (2016). https://scholar.google.fr/

    Google Scholar 

  71. T. Sotiropoulos, H. Waeselynck, J. Guiochet, F. Ingrand, Can robot navigation bugs be found in simulation? An exploratory study, in IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (2017). https://dblp.org/rec/conf/qrs/SotiropoulosWGI17

  72. H. Täubig, U. Frese, C. Hertzberg, C. Lüth, S. Mohr, E. Vorobev, D. Walter Guaranteeing functional safety: design for provability and computer-aided verification. Auton. Rob. 32(3), 303–331 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-011-9271-y. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10514-011-9271-y

  73. C.J. Tomlin, I. Mitchell, A.M. Bayen, M. Oishi, Computational techniques for the verification of hybrid systems. Proc. IEEE 91(7), 986–1001 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2003.814621. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1215682/

  74. V. Verma, A.K. Jónsson, C. Pasareanu, M. Iatauro, Universal executive and PLEXIL: engine and language for robust spacecraft control and operations, in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space, AIAA Space Conference (2006). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:IpQ407u5_qsJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5

    Google Scholar 

  75. F. Vicentini, M. Askarpour, M.G. Rossi, D. Mandrioli, Safety Assessment of Collaborative Robotics Through Automated Formal Verification. IEEE Trans. Rob. 36(1), 42–61 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2019.2937471. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8844289/

  76. B.C. Williams, M.D. Ingham, Model-based programming of intelligent embedded systems and robotic space explorers. Proc IEEE Special Issue Model. Design Embedded Softw. 91(1), 212–237 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  77. K.W. Wong, H. Kress-Gazit, Robot operating system (ROS) introspective implementation of high-level task controllers. J. Softw. Eng. Rob. 8(1), 1–13 (2017). https://doi.org/10.6092/JOSER. http://joser.unibg.it/index.php/joser/issue/view/9

  78. J. Woodcock, P.G. Larsen, J. Bicarregui, J.S. Fitzgerald, Formal methods: Practice and experience. ACM Comput. Surveys 41(4) (2009). https://dblp.org/rec/journals/csur/WoodcockLBF09

  79. N. Yakymets, S. Dhouib, H. Jaber, A. Lanusse, Model-driven safety assessment of robotic systems, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IEEE, Piscataway, 2013), pp. 1137–1142. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6696493. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6696493&contentType=Conference+Publications

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 825619 (AI4EU) and the Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute – Institut 3iA (ANITI) under grant agreement No: ANR-19-PI3A-0004.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAAS/CNRS, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France

    Félix Ingrand

Authors
  1. Félix Ingrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Félix Ingrand .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK

    Ana Cavalcanti

  2. University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    Brijesh Dongol

  3. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Rob Hierons

  4. University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK

    Jon Timmis

  5. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK

    Jim Woodcock

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ingrand, F. (2021). Verification of Autonomous Robots: A Roboticist’s Bottom-Up Approach. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dongol, B., Hierons, R., Timmis, J., Woodcock, J. (eds) Software Engineering for Robotics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66494-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66494-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66493-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66494-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation