BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Annabelle McIver

Annabelle McIver contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringLogic in Computer Science

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Correctness by construction for probabilistic programs

The "correct by construction" paradigm is an important component of modern Formal Methods, and here we use the probabilistic Guarded-Command Language $\mathit{pGCL}$ to illustrate its application to $\mathit{probabilistic}$ programming. $\mathit{pGCL}$ extends Dijkstra's guarded-command language $\mathit{GCL}$ with probabilistic choice, and is equipped with a correctness-preserving refinement relation $(\sqsubseteq)$ that enables compact, abstract specifications of probabilistic properties to be transformed gradually to concrete, executable code by applying mathematical insights in a systematic and layered way. Characteristically for "correctness by construction", as far as possible the reasoning in each refinement-step layer does not depend on earlier layers, and does not affect later ones. We demonstrate the technique by deriving a fair-coin implementation of any given discrete probability distribution. In the special case of simulating a fair die, our correct-by-construction algorithm turns out to be "within spitting distance" of Knuth and Yao's optimal solution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Failure Mode Reasoning in Model Based Safety Analysis

Failure Mode Reasoning (FMR) is a novel approach for analyzing failure in a Safety Instrumented System (SIS). The method uses an automatic analysis of an SIS program to calculate potential failures in parts of the SIS. In this paper we use a case study from the power industry to demonstrate how FMR can be utilized in conjunction with other model-based safety analysis methods, such as HiP-HOPS and CFT, in order to achieve a comprehensive safety analysis of SIS. In this case study, FMR covers the analysis of SIS inputs while HiP-HOPS/CFT models the faults of logic solver and final elements. The SIS program is analyzed by FMR and the results are exported to HiP-HOPS/CFT via automated interfaces. The final outcome is the collective list of SIS failure modes along with their reliability measures. We present and review the results from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Reasoning with failures

Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) protect major hazard facilities, e.g. power plants, against catastrophic accidents. An SIS consists of hardware components and a controller software -- the ``program''. Current safety analyses of SIS' include the construction of a fault tree, summarising potential faults of the components and how they can arise within an SIS. The exercise of identifying faults typically relies on the experience of the safety engineer. Unfortunately the program part is often too complicated to be analysed in such a ``by hand" manner and so the impact it has on the resulting safety analysis is not accurately captured. In this paper we demonstrate how a formal model for faults and failure modes can be used to analyse the impact of an SIS program. We outline the underlying concepts of \emph{Failure Mode Reasoning} and its application in safety analysis, and we illustrate the ideas on a practical example.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access