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

Wolfgang Ahrendt

Wolfgang Ahrendt contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
eess.SYSystems and ControlFormal Languages and Automata Theorymath.LOProgramming Languages

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
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)

preprint2022arXiv

Formal Development of Safe Automated Driving using Differential Dynamic Logic

The challenges in providing convincing arguments for safe and correct behavior of automated driving (AD) systems have so far hindered their widespread commercial deployment. Conventional development approaches such as testing and simulation are limited by non-exhaustive analysis, and can thus not guarantee correctness in all possible scenarios. Formal methods is an approach to provide mathematical proofs of correctness, using a model of a system, that could be used to give the necessary arguments. This paper investigates the use of differential dynamic logic and the deductive verification tool KeYmaera X in the development of an AD feature. Specifically, formal models and safety proofs of different design variants of a Decision & Control module for an in-lane AD feature are presented. In doing so, the assumptions and invariant conditions necessary to guarantee safety are identified, and the paper shows how such an analysis helps during the development process in requirement refinement and formulation of the operational design domain. Furthermore, it is shown how the performance of the different models is formally analyzed exhaustively, in all their allowed behaviors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On How to Not Prove Faulty Controllers Safe in Differential Dynamic Logic

Cyber-physical systems are often safety-critical and their correctness is crucial, as in the case of automated driving. Using formal mathematical methods is one way to guarantee correctness. Though these methods have shown their usefulness, care must be taken as modeling errors might result in proving a faulty controller safe, which is potentially catastrophic in practice. This paper deals with two such modeling errors in differential dynamic logic. Differential dynamic logic is a formal specification and verification language for hybrid systems, which are mathematical models of cyber-physical systems. The main contribution is to prove conditions that when fulfilled, these two modeling errors cannot cause a faulty controller to be proven safe. The problems are illustrated with a real world example of a safety controller for automated driving, and it is shown that the formulated conditions have the intended effect both for a faulty and a correct controller. It is also shown how the formulated conditions aid in finding a loop invariant candidate to prove properties of hybrid systems with feedback loops. The results are proven using the interactive theorem prover KeYmaera X.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Deductive Verification of Floating-Point Java Programs in KeY

Deductive verification has been successful in verifying interesting properties of real-world programs. One notable gap is the limited support for floating-point reasoning. This is unfortunate, as floating-point arithmetic is particularly unintuitive to reason about due to rounding as well as the presence of the special values infinity and `Not a Number' (NaN). In this paper, we present the first floating-point support in a deductive verification tool for the Java programming language. Our support in the KeY verifier handles arithmetic via floating-point decision procedures inside SMT solvers and transcendental functions via axiomatization. We evaluate this integration on new benchmarks, and show that this approach is powerful enough to prove the absence of floating-point special values -- often a prerequisite for further reasoning about numerical computations -- as well as certain functional properties for realistic benchmarks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access