Advertisement

Towards Using Simulation to Evaluate Safety Policy for Systems of Systems

  • Robert Alexander
  • Martin Hall-May
  • Georgios Despotou
  • Tim Kelly
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4324)

Abstract

The increasing role of Systems of Systems (SoS) in safety-critical applications establishes the need for methods to ensure their safe behaviour. One approach to ensuring this is by means of safety policy — a set of rules that all the system entities must abide by. This paper proposes simulation as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of such a policy. The requirements for simulation models are identified, and a means for decomposing high-level policy goals into machine-interpretable policy rules is described. It is then shown how the enforcement of policy could be integrated into a simple agent architecture based around a blackboard. Finally, an approach to evaluating the safety of a system based using simulation techniques is outlined.

Keywords

Policy Rule Safe Behaviour Oxford English Dictionary Safety Policy Fault Tree Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maier, M.W.: Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. In: 6th Annual Symposium of INCOSE, pp. 567–574 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Periorellis, P., Dobson, J.: Organisational failures in dependable collaborative enterprise systems. Journal of Object Technology 1, 107–117 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simpson, J., Weiner, E. (eds.): Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkinson, P.J., Kelly, T.P.: Functional hazard analysis for highly integrated aerospace systems. In: IEE Seminar on Certification of Ground / Air Systems, London, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leveson, N.G.: A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science 42, 237–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burns, J., Cheng, A., Gurung, P., Rajagopalan, S., Rao, P., Rosenbluth, D., Surendran, A.V., Martin Jr., D.M.: Automatic management of network security policy. In: Proceedings of the DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, California, USA, vol. 2, pp. 1012–1026. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damianou, N., Dulay, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: Managing security in object-based distributed systems using Ponder. In: Proceedings of the 6th Open European Summer School (Eunice 2000). Twente University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moffett, J.D., Sloman, M.S.: The representation of policies as system objects. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 171–184. ACM Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodeau, D.J.: System-of-systems security engineering. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 228–235. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wies, R.: Using a classification of management policies for policy specification and policy transformation. In: Sethi, A.S., Raynaud, Y., Fure-Vincent, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, Santa Barbara, California, USA, vol. 4, pp. 44–56. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sage, A.P., Cuppan, C.D.: On the systems engineering and management of systems of systems and federations of systems. Information, Knowledge, and Systems Management 2, 325–345 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clough, B.T.: Autonomous UAV control system safety—what should it be, how do we reach it, and what should we call it? In: Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference 2000, Dayton, Ohio, USA, pp. 807–814. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edwards, W.K.: Policies and roles in collaborative applications. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Cambridge, Massachusets, USA, pp. 11–20. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly, T.P.: Arguing Safety—A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. Dphil thesis, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8, 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall-May, M., Kelly, T.P.: Defining and decomposing safety policy for systems of systems. In: Winther, R., Gran, B.A., Dahll, G. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3688, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall-May, M., Kelly, T.P.: Using agent-based modelling approaches to support the development of safety policy for systems of systems. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 330–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, S., Pritchett, A., Goldsman, D.: Hybrid agent-based simulation for analyzing the national airspace system. In: Peters, B.A., Smith, J.S., Madeiros, D.J., Rohrer, M.W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1029–1037 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Archer, J.: Developing the potential of micro-simulation modelling for traffic safety assessment. In: Proceedings of the 13th ICTCT Workshop, pp. 233–246 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-Agent Systems: an Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allan, R. (ed.): Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations, 3rd edn. Civil Aviation Authority (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Damianou, N., Dulay, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: Ponder: A language for specifying security and management policies for distributed systems. Research Report DoC 2000/1, Imperial College, London (2000), http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/deptechrep/DTR00-1.pdf
  25. 25.
    Isla, D., Burke, R., Downie, M., Blumberg, B.: A layered brain architecture for synthetic creatures. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benson, K.C., Goldsman, D., Pritchett, A.R.: Applying statistical control techniques to air traffic simulations. In: Ingalis, R.G., Rosetti, M.D., Smith, J.S., Peters, B.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1330–1338 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J., Randell, B.: Dependability of computer systems: Fundanmental concepts, terminlogy and examples. In: Proceedings of the IARP/IEEE-RAS Workshop on Robot Dependability, Seoul (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Despotou, G., Kelly, T.: An argument based approach for assessing design alternatives and facilitating trade-offs in critical systems. In: Proceedings of the 24th International System Safety Conference (ISSC), Albuquerque, NM, USA, Systems Safety Society (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brooks, R.A.: Intelligence without representation. Artifical Intelligence 47, 139–159 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jakobi, N., Husbands, P., Harvey, I.: Noise and the reality gap: The use of simulation in evolutionary robotics. LNCS, vol. 929 (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoeber, F.P.: Military Applications of Modeling: Selected Case Studies. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers (1981)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dewar, J.A., Bankes, S.C., Hodges, J.S., Lucas, T., Saunders-Newton, D.K., Vye, P.: Credible uses of the distributed interactive simulation (DIS) system. Technical Report MR-607-A, RAND (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alexander, R., Hall-May, M., Kelly, T.: Characterisation of systems of systems failures. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Systems Safety Conference (ISSC 2004), pp. 499–508. System Safety Society (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alexander, R., Kazakov, D., Kelly, T.: System of systems hazard analysis using simulation and machine learning. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Alexander
    • 1
  • Martin Hall-May
    • 1
  • Georgios Despotou
    • 1
  • Tim Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations