Advertisement

Approaches to Realize the Potential of Autonomous Underwater Systems in Concept Development and Experimentation

  • Thomas MansfieldEmail author
  • Pilar Caamaño Sobrino
  • Arnau Carrera Viñas
  • Giovanni Luca Maglione
  • Robert Been
  • Alberto Tremori
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11472)

Abstract

Recent NATO reports highlight the rapid progress being made in the development of autonomous underwater systems. In contrast, national reports indicate that their benefits are not being fully realized in a timely manner in operational scenarios. One approach to improve NATO’s adoption of these systems is to provide guidance in the NATO concept development and experimentation process specially aimed at articulating autonomous system behaviors and allowing efficient experimentation with their capabilities. This position paper reviews the latest techniques and approaches for articulating and testing autonomous system capabilities in industry, academia and within NATOs national militaries. Discussed techniques focus on encouraging and developing understanding and trust in the commander and operator stakeholder communities as well improving the efficiency of autonomous system testing. Potential future guidance and the structure of these activities within the existing NATO CD&E framework are presented for further discussion.

Keywords

Autonomous underwater vehicles Concept development and experimentation Design of experiments Virtualization Mine countermeasure 

References

  1. 1.
    Dyndal, G.L., Berntsen, T.A., Redse-Johansen, S.: Autonomous military drones: no longer science fiction. NATO Review Magazine, Oslo, Norway (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams, A.P., Scharre, P.D.: Autonomous Systems - Issues for Defence Policy Makers. NATO Headquarters SACT, Norfolk (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yuh, J.: Design and control of autonomous underwater robots: a survey. Auton. Robot. 8(1), 7–24 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Nijs, H.: Concept development and experimentation policy and process. HQ SACT, Norfolk, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boulanin, V., Verbruggen, M.: Mapping the Development of Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NATO: NATO concept development and experimentation (CD&E) process. North Atlantic Military Committee (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Wiel, W., et. al.: Concept maturity levels bringing structure to the CD&E process. In: Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    NATO: The NATO Alternative Analysis Handbook, 2nd edn. NATO, Brussels (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Software V&V Working Group: IEEE STD 1012-2012 - IEEE Standard for System and Software Verification and Validation. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pecheur, C.: Verification and Validation of Autonomy Software at NASA. NASA Ames Research Center, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schumann, J., Visser, W.: Autonomy software: V&V challenges and charecteristics. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodicky, J., Prochazka, D.: Challenges in the implementation of autonomous systems into the battlefield. In: 6th International Conference on Military Technologies, Brno, CZE (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Callow, G., Watson, G., Kalawsky, R.: System modelling for run-time verification and validation of autonomous systems. In: Conference in Systems of Systems Engineering, Loughborough, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Defence Science Board: The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tremori, A., et al.: A verification, validation and accreditation process for autonomous interoperable systems. In: Mazal, J. (ed.) MESAS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10756, pp. 314–323. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76072-8_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palmer, G., Selwyn, A., Zwillinger, D.: The “Trust V”: building and measuring trust in autonomous systems. In: Mittu, R., Sofge, D., Wagner, A., Lawless, W.F. (eds.) Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems, pp. 55–77. Springer, Boston, MA (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7668-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helle, P., Schamai, W., Strobel, C.: Testing of autonomous systems - challenges and current state-of-the-art. In: INCOSE International Symposium, Edinburg, UK (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hodicky, J.: Autonomous systems operationalization gaps overcome by modelling and simulation. In: Hodicky, J. (ed.) MESAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9991, pp. 40–47. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47605-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson, M.: Testing the intelligence of unmanned autonomous systems. Int. Test Eval. Assoc. 29, 380–387 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahner, D.K., Parson, C.R.: Workshop report: test and evaluation of autonomous systems. USA Department of Defense, Washington D.C., USA (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heitmeyer, C.K., Leonard, E.I.: Obtaining trust on autonomous systems: tool for formal model synthesis and validation. In: Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering, Florence, Italy (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heitmeyer, C.L., Archer, M., Bharadwaj, R., Jeffords, R.D.: Tools for constructing requirements specifications: the SCR toolset at the age of 10. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 20(1), 19–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Phon, D.N.E., Ali, M.B., Halim, N.D.A.: Collaborative augmented reality in education: a review. In: International Conference in Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, Kuching, Malaysia (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carruth, D.W.: Virtual reality for education and workforce training. In: International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications, Stary Smokovec, Slovakia (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© NATO 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Mansfield
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pilar Caamaño Sobrino
    • 1
  • Arnau Carrera Viñas
    • 1
  • Giovanni Luca Maglione
    • 1
  • Robert Been
    • 1
  • Alberto Tremori
    • 1
  1. 1.NATO STO Centre for Maritime Research and ExperimentationLa SpeziaItaly

Personalised recommendations