Vehicle safety depends on (a) the range of identified hazards and (b) the operational situations for which mitigations of these hazards are acceptably decreasing risk. Moreover, with an increasing degree of autonomy, risk ownership is likely to increase for vendors towards regulatory certification. Hence, highly automated vehicles have to be equipped with verified controllers capable of reliably identifying and mitigating hazards in all possible operational situations. To this end, available methods for the design and verification of automated vehicle controllers have to be supported by models for hazard analysis and mitigation.
G "udemann and Ortmeier @cite_7 present a language for probabilistic system modeling for safety analysis. Formalized as , they propose two ways of failure mode modeling ( per-time and per-demand failure modes), and two ways of deductive cause consequence reasoning ( quantitative and qualitative). Their model and reasoning can extend our approach. However, our work (i) adds stronger guidelines on how to build planning models and (ii) puts hazard analysis into the context of autonomous systems and mitigation planning.
@cite_7
2118864410 1523041988 1555569599 1511986666
In model-based safety analysis both qualitative aspects i.e. what must go wrong for a system failure) and quantitative aspects (i.e. how probable is a system failure) are very important. For both aspects methods and tools are available. However, until now for each aspect new and independent models must be built for analysis. This paper proposes the SAML framework as a formal foundation for both qualitative and quantitative formal model-based safety analysis. The main advantage of SAML is the combination of qualitative and quantitative formal semantics which allows different analyses on the same model. This increases the confidence in the analysis results, simplifies modeling and is less error-prone. The SAML framework is tool-independent. As proof-of-concept, we present sound transformation of the formalism into two state of the art model-checking notations. Prototypical tool support for the sound transformation of SAML into PRISM and MRMC for probabilistic analysis as well as different variants of the SMV model checker for qualitative analysis is currently being developed. A traditional counterexample to a linear-time safety property shows the values of all signals at all times prior to the error. However, some signals may not be critical to causing the failure. A succinct explanation may help human understanding as well as speed up algorithms that have to analyze many such traces. In Bounded Model Checking (BMC), a counterexample is constructed from a satisfying assignment to a Boolean formula, typically in CNF. Modern SAT solvers usually assign values to all variables when the input formula is satisfiable. Deriving minimal satisfying assignments from such complete assignments does not lead to concise explanations of counterexamples because of how CNF formulae are derived from the models. Hence, we formulate the extraction of a succinct counterexample as the problem of finding a minimal assignment that, together with the Boolean formula describing the model, implies an objective. We present a two-stage algorithm for this problem, such that the result of each stage contributes to identify the “interesting” events that cause the failure. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with an example and with experimental results. In large-scale data enters, software and hardware failures are frequent, resulting in failures of job executions that may cause significant resource waste and performance deterioration. To proactively minimize the resource inefficiency due to job failures, it is important to identify them in advance using key job attributes. However, so far, prevailing research on datacenter workload characterization has overlooked job failures, including their patterns, root causes, and impact. In this paper, we aim to develop prediction models and mitigation policies for unsuccessful jobs, so as to reduce the resource waste in big data enters. In particular, we base our analysis on Google cluster traces, consisting of a large number of big-data jobs with a high task fan-out. We first identify the time-varying patterns of failed jobs and the contributing system features. Based on our characterization study, we develop an on-line predictive model for job failures by applying various statistical learning techniques, namely Linear Discriminate Analysis (LDA), Quadratic Discriminate Analysis (QDA), and Logistic Regression (LR). Furthermore, we propose a delay-based mitigation policy which, after a certain grace period, proactively terminates the execution of jobs that are predicted to fail. The particular objective of postponing job terminations is to strike a good tradeoffs between resource waste and false prediction of successful jobs. Our evaluation results show that the proposed method is able to significantly reduce the resource waste by 41.9 on average, and keep false terminations of jobs low, i.e., only 1 . Most tasks require a person or an automated system to reason -- to reach conclusions based on available information. The framework of probabilistic graphical models, presented in this book, provides a general approach for this task. The approach is model-based, allowing interpretable models to be constructed and then manipulated by reasoning algorithms. These models can also be learned automatically from data, allowing the approach to be used in cases where manually constructing a model is difficult or even impossible. Because uncertainty is an inescapable aspect of most real-world applications, the book focuses on probabilistic models, which make the uncertainty explicit and provide models that are more faithful to reality. Probabilistic Graphical Models discusses a variety of models, spanning Bayesian networks, undirected Markov networks, discrete and continuous models, and extensions to deal with dynamical systems and relational data. For each class of models, the text describes the three fundamental cornerstones: representation, inference, and learning, presenting both basic concepts and advanced techniques. Finally, the book considers the use of the proposed framework for causal reasoning and decision making under uncertainty. The main text in each chapter provides the detailed technical development of the key ideas. Most chapters also include boxes with additional material: skill boxes, which describe techniques; case study boxes, which discuss empirical cases related to the approach described in the text, including applications in computer vision, robotics, natural language understanding, and computational biology; and concept boxes, which present significant concepts drawn from the material in the chapter. Instructors (and readers) can group chapters in various combinations, from core topics to more technically advanced material, to suit their particular needs.