Here is our paper on pitfalls in safety argumentation for autonomous systems for SSS 2019. My keynote talk will mostly be about perception stress testing but I'm of course happy to talk about this paper as well at the meeting.
Credible Autonomy Safety Argumentation
Philip Koopman, Aaron Kane, Jen Black
Carnegie Mellon University, Edge Case Research Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Abstract A significant challenge to deploying mission- and safety-critical autonomous systems is the difficulty of creating a credible assurance argument. This paper collects lessons learned from having observed both credible and faulty assurance argumentation attempts, with a primary emphasis on autonomous ground vehicle safety cases. Various common argumentation approaches are described, including conformance to a non-autonomy safety standard, proven in use, field testing, simulation, and formal verification. Of particular note are argumentation faults and anti-patterns that have shown up in numerous safety cases that we have encountered. These observations can help both designers and auditors detect common mistakes in safety argumentation for autonomous systems.
Download the full paper:
Last week there were two injuries involving human-supervised autonomous test shuttles on different continents, with no apparent connecti...
It's time to get past the irrelevant Trolley Problem and talk about ethical issues that actually matter in the real world of self drivi...
When you build an autonomous vehicle you can't count on a human driver to notice when something's wrong and "do the right thing...
Dealing with Edge Cases: Some failures are neither random nor independent. Moreover, safety is typically more about dealing with unusual ...