<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Applications of Goal-directed Answer Set Programming to Avionics Industry*</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Brendan Hall</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Dallas</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Richardson, TX</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Honeywell Advanced Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Plymouth</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>Honeywell International s.r.o</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Brno</addr-line>
          ,
          <country>Czech Republic &amp; Brno Univ. of Technology</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4">
          <label>4</label>
          <institution>Universidad Rey Juan Carlos</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Madrid</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="ES">Spain</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>[1] Joaqu´ın Arias et al. “Constraint answer set programming without grounding”. In: TPLP 18(3-4):337-354 (2018). [2] M. Gelfond and Y. Kahl. Knowledge representation, reasoning, &amp; design of intelligent agents: The answer-set programming approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014. [3] B. Hall, D. Bhatt, et al. “A CLEAR Adoption of EARS”. In: IEEE EARS Workshop. 2018, pp. 14-15. [4] B. Hall, J. Fiedor, and Y Jeppu. “Model Integrated Decomposition and Assisted Specification (MIDAS)”. In: INCOSE Int'l Symp. Vol. 30(1):821-841. Wiley. [5] Murray Shanahan. “The event calculus explained”. In: Artificial intelligence today. Springer, 1999, pp. 409-430.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Developing effective requirements is crucial for success in
building a system. The more complete, consistent, and feasible
the requirements, the fewer problems system developers will
encounter later. Current automation of requirements
engineering tasks attempt to ensure completeness, consistency, and
feasibility. However, such automated support remains limited.
In this work, we present novel automated techniques for aiding
the development of model-augmented requirements that are
complete (to the extent possible), consistent, and feasible—
where consistency and feasibility are validated. Thus, we can
have more confidence in the requirements. We limit ourselves
to requirements for cyber-physical systems, particularly those
in avionics. We assume that requirements are generated within
the MIDAS (Model-Assisted Decomposition and
Specification) [4] environment, and are expressed in CLEAR
(Constrained Language Enhanced Approach to Requirements) [3],
a constraint natural requirement language.</p>
      <p>Our main contribution in this work is to show how the Event
Calculus [5] (EC) and Answer Set Programming (ASP) [2]
can be used to formalize constrained natural language
requirements for cyber-physical systems and perform
knowledgeassisted reasoning over them. ASP is a logic-based knowledge
representation language that has been prominently used in
AI. Our work builds upon recent advances made within
the s(CASP) system [1], a query-driven (or goal-directed)
implementation of predicate ASP that supports constraint
solving over reals, permitting the faithful representation of
time as a continuous quantity. The s(CASP) system permits
the modeling of event calculus elegantly and directly. A major
advantage of using the event calculus—in contrast to automata
and Kripke structure-based approaches—is that it can directly
model cyber-physical systems, thereby avoiding “pollution”
due to (often premature) design decisions that must be made
in the other modeling formalisms. The event calculus is a
formalism—a set of axioms—for modeling dynamic systems
and was proposed by artificial intelligence researchers to solve
the frame problem [5]. The primary goal of this work is
to explore how constrained natural language requirements,
specified within MIDAS [4] using the CLEAR notation, can
be automatically reasoned about and analyzed using the event
calculus and query-driven answer set programming.
Specifically, we explore:
1) How to systematically capture design and intent within
the MIDAS framework.
2) How ASP-based model checking (over dense time) can
validate specified system behaviors wrt system properties.
3) How application of abductive reasoning can extend
ASPbased model checking to incorporate domain knowledge
and real-world/environmental assumptions/concerns.
4) How knowledge-driven analysis can identify typical
requirement specification errors, and/or requirement
constructs which exhibit areas of potential/probable risk.</p>
      <p>The talk will be organized as follows. We will give
motivation for our work and discuss the importance of writing
requirements that are consistent and complete. We will present
how MIDAS enables a formal flow-down of functional intent
through different stages of design refinement. We will
summarize the two faces of requirements (outward and inward
facing), as they support validation and verification objectives
(respectively). We will then discuss the enabling background
technologies (EC and ASP), before presenting how they can
be integrated within the MIDAS platform to support our goals.
We will illustrate our approach using an altitude alerting case
study from an actual aerospace system and discuss adjacent
real-world examples to show how one can use generalized
knowledge within other system contexts. We will illustrate
requirement defect discovery using s(CASP) for
propertybased model-checking as well as discuss how more general
knowledge of potential requirements defects may detect
defects that traditional techniques may not be able to find.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>