A formal approach for identifying assurance deficits in unmanned aerial vehicle software

  • Adrian GrozaEmail author
  • Ioan Alfred Letia
  • Anca Goron
  • Sergiu Zaporojan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 366)


.While formal methods have proved to be unfeasible for large scale systems, argument-based safety cases offer a plausible alternative basis for certification of critical software. Our proposed method for increasing safety combines formal methods with argumentation-based reasoning. In a first step, we provide a formal representation of the the argumentative-based Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) standard used in industry. In a second step, our solution exploits reasoning in description logic to identify assurance deficits in the GSN model. The identified flaws are given to a hybrid logic-based model checker to be validated against a Kripke model. The method is illustrated for an unmanned aerial vehicle software, with reasoning performed in RacerPro engine and the HLMC model checker based on hybrid logic.


safety cases argumentation description logic hybrid logic 



This work was supported by the Romania-Moldova Bilateral Agreement entitled ”ASDEC: Structural Argumentation for Decision Support with Normative Constraints”, from the National Research Council of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research and Moldova Ministry of Education.


  1. 1.
    Areces, C., ten Cate, B.: Hybrid logics. In: Blackburn, P., Van Benthem, J., Wolter, F. (eds.) Handbook of Modal Logic, pp. 821–868. Elsevier Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge university press (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunel, J., Cazin, J.: Formal methods for the certification of autonomous unmanned aircraft systems. In: Formal Verification of a Safety Argumentation and Application to a Complex UAV System. pp. 307–318. SAFECOMP’11, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M.: Verifying social expectations by model checking truncated paths. Journal of Logic and Computation 21(6), 1217–1256 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franceschet, M., de Rijke, M.: Model checking hybrid logics (with an application to semistructured data). Journal of Applied Logic 4, 279–304 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graydon, P., Habli, I., Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J.: Arguing conformance. Software, IEEE 29(3), 50–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graydon, P., Kelly, T.P.: Using argumentation to evaluate software assurance standards. Information and Software Technology 55(9), 1551–1562 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haarslev, V., Hidde, K., Möller, R., Wessel, M.: The racerpro knowledge representation and reasoning system. Semantic Web 3(3), 267–277 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Compliance checking of integrated business processes. Data Knowl. Eng. 87, 1–18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rushby, J.: A safety-case approach for certifying adaptive systems. In: AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference, American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Webster, M., Fisher, M., Cameron, N., Jump, M.: Formal methods for the certification of autonomous unmanned aircraft systems. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. pp. 228–242. SAFECOMP’11, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Groza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ioan Alfred Letia
    • 1
  • Anca Goron
    • 1
  • Sergiu Zaporojan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of MoldovaChisinauMoldova

Personalised recommendations