Search

Extensive research on formal verification of machine learning systems indicates that learning from data alone often fails to capture underlying background knowledge such as specifications implicitly available in the data. Various neural network verifiers have been developed to ensure that a machine-learnt model satisfies correctness and safety properties, however, they typically assume a trained network with fixed weights. A promising approach for creating machine learning models that inherently satisfy constraints after training is to encode background knowledge as explicit logical constraints that guide the learning process via so-called differentiable logics. In this paper, we experimentally compare and evaluate various logics from the literature, presenting our findings and highlighting open problems for future work., Comment: 20 pages, 8 figures. Submitted to Science of Computer Programming

Extensive research on formal verification of machine learning (ML) systems indicates that learning from data alone often fails to capture underlying background knowledge. A variety of verifiers have been developed to ensure that a machine-learnt model satisfies correctness and safety properties, however, these verifiers typically assume a trained network with fixed weights. ML-enabled autonomous systems are required to not only detect incorrect predictions, but should also possess the ability to self-correct, continuously improving and adapting. A promising approach for creating ML models that inherently satisfy constraints is to encode background knowledge as logical constraints that guide the learning process via so-called differentiable logics. In this research preview, we compare and evaluate various logics from the literature in weakly-supervised contexts, presenting our findings and highlighting open problems for future work. Our experimental results are broadly consistent with results reported previously in literature; however, learning with differentiable logics introduces a new hyperparameter that is difficult to tune and has significant influence on the effectiveness of the logics., Comment: In Proceedings FMAS 2023, arXiv:2311.08987

This study provides a comprehensive review of the utilization of Virtual Reality (VR) for visualizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, drawing on 18 selected studies. The results illuminate a complex interplay of tools, methods, and approaches, notably the prominence of VR engines like Unreal Engine and Unity. However, despite these tools, a universal solution for effective AI visualization remains elusive, reflecting the unique strengths and limitations of each technique. We observed the application of VR for AI visualization across multiple domains, despite challenges such as high data complexity and cognitive load. Moreover, it briefly discusses the emerging ethical considerations pertaining to the broad integration of these technologies. Despite these challenges, the field shows significant potential, emphasizing the need for dedicated research efforts to unlock the full potential of these immersive technologies. This review, therefore, outlines a roadmap for future research, encouraging innovation in visualization techniques, addressing identified challenges, and considering the ethical implications of VR and AI convergence., Comment: 19 pages

Although the advantages of just-in-time compilation over traditional interpretive execution are widely recognised, there needs to be more current research investigating and repositioning the performance differences between these two execution models relative to contemporary workloads. Specifically, there is a need to examine the performance differences between Java Runtime Environment (JRE) Java Virtual Machine (JVM) tiered execution and JRE JVM interpretive execution relative to modern multicore architectures and modern concurrent and parallel benchmark workloads. This article aims to fill this research gap by presenting the results of a study that compares the performance of these two execution models under load from the Renaissance Benchmark Suite. This research is relevant to anyone interested in understanding the performance differences between just-in-time compiled code and interpretive execution. It provides a contemporary assessment of the interpretive JVM core, the entry and starting point for bytecode execution, relative to just-in-time tiered execution. The study considers factors such as the JRE version, the GNU GCC version used in the JRE build toolchain, and the garbage collector algorithm specified at runtime, and their impact on the performance difference envelope between interpretive and tiered execution. Our findings indicate that tiered execution is considerably more efficient than interpretive execution, and the performance gap has increased, ranging from 4 to 37 times more efficient. On average, tiered execution is approximately 15 times more efficient than interpretive execution. Additionally, the performance differences between interpretive and tiered execution are influenced by workload category, with narrower performance differences observed for web-based workloads and more significant differences for Functional and Scala-type workloads., Comment: 17 pages

Software verification is an important tool in establishing the reliability of critical systems. One potential area of application is in the field of robotics, as robots take on more tasks in both day-to-day areas and highly specialised domains. Robots are usually given a plan to follow, if there are errors in this plan the robot will not perform reliably. The capability to check plans for errors in advance could prevent this. Python is a popular programming language in the robotics domain, through the use of the Robot Operating System (ROS) and various other libraries. Python's Turtle package provides a mobile agent, which we formally model here using Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP). Our interactive toolchain CSP2Turtle with CSP model and Python components, enables Turtle plans to be verified in CSP before being executed in Python. This means that certain classes of errors can be avoided, and provides a starting point for more detailed verification of Turtle programs and more complex robotic systems. We illustrate our approach with examples of robot navigation and obstacle avoidance in a 2D grid-world., Comment: In Proceedings AREA 2022, arXiv:2207.09058

Like software, requirements evolve and change frequently during the development process. Refactoring is the process of reorganising software without changing its behaviour, to make it easier to understand and modify. We propose refactoring for formalised requirements to reduce repetition in the requirement set so that they are easier to maintain as the system and requirements evolve. This work-in-progress paper describes our motivation for and initial approach to refactoring requirements in NASA's Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET). This work was directly triggered by our experience with an industrial aircraft engine software controller use case. In this paper, we reflect on the requirements that were obtained and, with a view to their maintainability, propose and outline functionality for refactoring FRETISH requirements.

[Context & motivation] Eliciting requirements that are detailed and logical enough to be amenable to formal verification is a difficult task. Multiple tools exist for requirements elicitation and some of these also support formalisation of requirements in a way that is useful for formal methods. [Question/problem] This paper reports on our experience of using the FRET alongside our industrial partner. The use case that we investigate is an aircraft engine controller. In this context, we evaluate the use of FRET to bridge the communication gap between formal methods experts and aerospace industry specialists. [Principal ideas/results] We describe our journey from ambiguous, natural-language requirements to concise, formalised FRET requirements. We include our analysis of the formalised requirements from the perspective of patterns, translation into other formal methods and the relationship between parent-child requirements in this set. We also provide insight into lessons learned throughout this process and identify future improvements to FRET. [Contribution] Previous experience reports have been published by the FRET team, but this is the first such report of an industrial use case that was written by researchers that have not been involved FRET's development., Comment: 22 pages, 3 figures

Verification of complex, safety-critical systems is a significant challenge. Manual testing and simulations are often used, but are only capable of exploring a subset of the system's reachable states. Formal methods are mathematically-based techniques for the specification and development of software, which can provide proofs of properties and exhaustive checks over a system's state space. In this paper, we present a formal requirements-driven methodology, applied to a model of an aircraft engine controller that has been provided by our industrial partner. Our methodology begins by formalising the controller's natural-language requirements using the (pre-existing) Formal Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET), iteratively, in consultation with our industry partner. Once formalised, FRET can automatically translate the requirements to enable their verification alongside a Simulink model of the aircraft engine controller; the requirements can also guide formal verification using other approaches. These two parallel streams in our methodology seek to combine the results from formal requirements elicitation, classical verification approaches, and runtime verification; to support the verification of aerospace systems modelled in Simulink, from the requirements phase through to execution. Our methodology harnesses the power of formal methods in a way that complements existing verification techniques, and supports the traceability of requirements throughout the verification process. This methodology streamlines the process of developing verifiable aircraft engine controllers, by ensuring that the requirements are formalised up-front and useable during development. In this paper we give an overview of (FRET), describe our methodology and work to-date on the formalisation and verification of the requirements, and outline future work using our methodology., Comment: Submitted to AeroConf 2022

This paper describes a formal semantics for the Event-B specification language using the theory of institutions. We define an institution for Event-B, EVT, and prove that it meets the validity requirements for satisfaction preservation and model amalgamation. We also present a series of functions that show how the constructs of the Event-B specification language can be mapped into our institution. Our semantics sheds new light on the structure of the Event-B language, allowing us to clearly delineate three constituent sub-languages: the superstructure, infrastructure and mathematical languages. One of the principal goals of our semantics is to provide access to the generic modularisation constructs available in institutions, including specification-building operators for parameterisation and refinement. We demonstrate how these features subsume and enhance the corresponding features already present in Event-B through a detailed study of their use in a worked example. We have implemented our approach via a parser and translator for Event-B specifications, EBtoEVT, which also provides a gateway to the Hets toolkit for heterogeneous specification.

VerifyThis is a series of program verification competitions that emphasize the human aspect: participants tackle the verification of detailed behavioral properties -- something that lies beyond the capabilities of fully automatic verification, and requires instead human expertise to suitably encode programs, specifications, and invariants. This paper describes the 8th edition of VerifyThis, which took place at ETAPS 2019 in Prague. Thirteen teams entered the competition, which consisted of three verification challenges and spanned two days of work. The report analyzes how the participating teams fared on these challenges, reflects on what makes a verification challenge more or less suitable for the typical VerifyThis participants, and outlines the difficulties of comparing the work of teams using wildly different verification approaches in a competition focused on the human aspect.

This volume contains the proceedings of F-IDE 2019, the fifth international workshop on Formal Integrated Development Environment, which was held on October 7, 2019 in Porto, Portugal, as part of FM'19, the 3rd World Congress on Formal Methods. High levels of safety, security and privacy standards require the use of formal methods to specify and develop compliant software (sub)systems. Any standard comes with an assessment process, which requires a complete documentation of the application in order to ease the justification of design choices and the review of code and proofs. Thus tools are needed for handling specifications, program constructs and verification artifacts. The aim of the F-IDE workshop is to provide a forum for presenting and discussing research efforts as well as experience returns on design, development and usage of formal IDE aiming at making formal methods "easier" for both specialists and non-specialists.

This volume contains the proceedings of F-IDE 2018, the fourth international workshop on Formal Integrated Development Environment, which was held as a FLoC 2018 satellite event, on July 14, 2018, in Oxford, England. High levels of safety, security and also privacy standards require the use of formal methods to specify and develop compliant software (sub)systems. Any standard comes with an assessment process, which requires a complete documentation of the application in order to ease the justification of design choices and the review of code and proofs. Thus tools are needed for handling specifications, program constructs and verification artifacts. The aim of the F-IDE workshop is to provide a forum for presenting and discussing research efforts as well as experience returns on design, development and usage of formal IDE aiming at making formal methods "easier" for both specialists and non-specialists.

The Why3 IDE and verification system facilitates the use of a wide range of Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers through a driver-based architecture. We present Where4: a portfolio-based approach to discharge Why3 proof obligations. We use data analysis and machine learning techniques on static metrics derived from program source code. Our approach benefits software engineers by providing a single utility to delegate proof obligations to the solvers most likely to return a useful result. It does this in a time-efficient way using existing Why3 and solver installations - without requiring low-level knowledge about SMT solver operation from the user., Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2016, arXiv:1701.07925

Modelling and thus metamodelling have become increasingly important in Software Engineering through the use of Model Driven Engineering. In this paper we present a systematic literature review of instance generation techniques for metamodels, i.e. the process of automatically generating models from a given metamodel. We start by presenting a set of research questions that our review is intended to answer. We then identify the main topics that are related to metamodel instance generation techniques, and use these to initiate our literature search. This search resulted in the identification of 34 key papers in the area, and each of these is reviewed here and discussed in detail. The outcome is that we are able to identify a knowledge gap in this field, and we offer suggestions as to some potential directions for future research., Comment: 25 pages