Summary: This post tries to summarize what dynamic verification is, using a single picture. It then puts various verification tools, and diverse verification projects, in the context of that picture. It also explains Coverage Driven Verification (CDV). The Foretellix blog is about verifying complex systems. However, as I discussed here, there is no agreed-upon verification … More Dynamic verification in one picture
Summary: This post discusses the annoying “Synthetic Sensor Input” (SSI) problem, i.e. the fact that it is very hard to synthesize realistic, synchronized streams of sensor inputs (e.g. Video+LiDAR+Radar). It explains why the SSI problem is a pain for Autonomous Vehicles verification (and for other things), and talks about the (imperfect) solutions. Let me start … More The “Synthetic Sensor Input” problem in AV verification
Summary: This post tries to explain (once and for all?) how the concept of coverage is used to optimize the verification process, what it means to auto-maximize coverage, and how people have tried to do it. I have been spending some time lately on coverage maximization via ML (which I described here). As is often … More Verification, coverage and maximization: The big picture
Whatever you think of my Stuttgart symposium trip report, at least I made the effort to attend it and report back. In this post I sink even lower, reporting from a conference I did not attend – the ICRA workshop on verification of autonomous systems. I did, however, watch the full 4.5 hour video (warning: … More The ICRA 2016 verification workshop
Summary: This trip report describes my impressions from the Second Autonomous Vehicles Test & Design Symposium in Stuttgart. Short version: The design side is moving fast. The verification side has improved, but has a long way to go. Note: In my last post I talked about what automation will do to this planet over the … More Finding bugs in autonomous vehicles: My impressions from the second Stuttgart symposium
I attended HVC’2015 last week. Here is a partial, very subjective trip report. HVC’2015 was good. I attended the tutorial day and the first two conference days, though I was absent from most of the hard-core formal-verification sessions. Here are the main things I learned: The Bristol folks Kerstin Eder, Dejanira Araiza-Illan and David Western … More HVC’2015 trip report
Summary: This post investigates the (slightly crazy) idea of creating “one universal verification framework for everything”, and claims that while the goal itself is probably impossible (for now), some interesting and worthwhile sub-goals are perhaps possible. As many people (including myself) have discussed before, there is no single “verification community”: there are really many verification … More Is a Universal Verification Framework possible?
Summary: This post explains why security research is relevant for this blog, and discusses three specific areas worth tracking. Hi folks – I’m back (vacations and all that). Security people deal with finding security issues (vulnerabilities) in systems. This blog deals with a different topic: big-system verification, where verification is defined as finding functional / … More Security research is pretty relevant for us
“Misc. stuff” posts will appear periodically. They will contain, well, miscellaneous [1] stuff – mainly links to papers and discussions which might be interesting to readers of this blog. For each, I’ll try to explain why it is relevant [2]. Hacker News and this blog My spec bugs post made it to the first page … More Misc. stuff – HN, machine learning and Jupyter
Most bugs which kill people (and projects) are spec / requirements bugs, not implementation bugs. This could be a missing top-level requirement, a missing implication of some requirement on a lower-level spec, or some emergent behavior which was never spec’d. This post will explore the problem of spec bugs, and discuss possible solutions. Note that … More It’s the spec bugs that kill you