Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
Simulation is a favoured technique for analysis of robotic systems. Currently, however, simulations are programmed in an ad hoc way, for specific simulators, using either proprietary languages or general languages like C or C++. Even when a higher-level language is used, no clear relation between the simulation and a design model is established. We describe a tool-independent notation called RoboSim, designed specifically for modelling of (verified) simulations. We describe the syntax, well-formedness conditions, and semantics of RoboSim. We also show how we can use RoboSim models to check if a simulation is consistent with a functional design written in a UML-like notation akin to those often used by practitioners on an informal basis. We show how to check whether the design enables a feasible scheduling of behaviours in cycles as needed for a simulation, and formalise implicit assumptions routinely made when programming simulations. We develop a running example and three additional case studies to illustrate RoboSim and the proposed verification techniques. Tool support is also briefly discussed. Our results enable the description of simulations using tool-independent diagrammatic models amenable to verification and automatic generation of code. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2019 | 10.1016/j.scico.2019.01.004 | Science of Computer Programming |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
State machines,Process algebra,CSP,Semantics,Refinement | Robotic systems,Notation,Programming language,Diagrammatic reasoning,Computer science,Scheduling (computing),Functional design,Artificial intelligence,Syntax,Robotics,Semantics | Journal |
Volume | ISSN | Citations |
174 | 0167-6423 | 1 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.41 | 24 | 8 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Ana Cavalcanti | 1 | 668 | 59.95 |
Augusto Sampaio | 2 | 501 | 43.38 |
Alvaro Miyazawa | 3 | 91 | 9.33 |
Pedro Ribeiro | 4 | 18 | 4.74 |
Madiel Conserva Filho | 5 | 2 | 1.46 |
André Didier | 6 | 17 | 3.07 |
Wei Li 0055 | 7 | 61 | 4.16 |
Jon Timmis | 8 | 1237 | 120.32 |