Formal Verification of Autonomous UAV Behavior for Inspection Tasks Using the Knowledge Base System IDP

  • Jan VermaelenEmail author
  • Hoang Tung DinhEmail author
  • Tom HolvoetEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12092)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become useful tools in industries. In this paper, we verify the behavior of an autonomous UAV executing an inspection task. More specifically, we look into the use of the knowledge base system IDP as a verification tool. We propose an approach for the modeling and verification of the safety-critical UAV and its environment in IDP. The methodology and modeling choices that are beneficial for the performance of the verification task and the readability of the model are denoted. We identify the need for discrete domains and investigate the consequences. Verification is successfully achieved using both Bounded Model Checking (BMC) and Invariant Checking (IC).


IDP Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Autonomous system Model Verification 



This research is partially funded by the Research Fund KU Leuven.


  1. 1.
    Alhawi, O.M., Mustafa, M.A., Cordeiro, L.C.: Finding security vulnerabilities in unmanned aerial vehicles using software verification. CoRR abs/1906.11488 (2019).
  2. 2.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In: Proceedings 1999 Design Automation Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36361), pp. 317–320, June 1999.
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. In: Advances in Computers, vol. 58, pp. 117–148. Elsevier (2003).
  4. 4.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruynooghe, M., et al.: Predicate logic as a modeling language: modeling and solving some machine learning and data mining problems with IDP3. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 15(6), 783–817 (2015). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M., Klieber, W., Nováček, M., Zuliani, P.: Model checking and the state explosion problem. In: Meyer, B., Nordio, M. (eds.) LASER 2011. LNCS, vol. 7682, pp. 1–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dinh, H.T., Cruz Torres, M.H., Holvoet, T.: Combining planning and model checking to get guarantees on the behavior of safety-critical UAV systems. In: ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Robotics (2018).
  8. 8.
    Hoffmann, R., Ireland, M., Miller, A., Norman, G., Veres, S.: Autonomous agent behaviour modelled in PRISM – a case study. In: Bošnački, D., Wijs, A. (eds.) SPIN 2016. LNCS, vol. 9641, pp. 104–110. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: probabilistic symbolic model checker. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 200–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schumann, J., Visser, W.: Autonomy software: V & V challenges and characteristics. In: 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sirigineedi, G., Tsourdos, A., White, B.A., Żbikowski, R.: Kripke modelling and verification of temporal specifications of a multiple UAV system. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 63(1), 31–52 (2011). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torens, C., Adolf, F.M., Goormann, L.: Certification and software verification considerations for autonomous unmanned aircraft. J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst. 11(10), 649–664 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, imec-DistriNetKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations