Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yuvaraj Selvaraj

dblp:216/7945 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-2184-3069ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-robot interaction · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction › human-robot collaboration
safe human-robot collaboration
0.712023
Hazard Analysis of Collaborative Automation Systems: A Two-layer Approach based on Supervisory Control and Simulation · ICRA 2023
Embedded and real-time systems
cyber-physical system platforms
0.212023
Hazard Analysis of Collaborative Automation Systems: A Two-layer Approach based on Supervisory Control and Simulation · ICRA 2023
Embedded and real-time systems › discrete event systems
supervisory control
0.212023
Hazard Analysis of Collaborative Automation Systems: A Two-layer Approach based on Supervisory Control and Simulation · ICRA 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

supervisory control theory · 1.3simulation-based analysis · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 On proving that an unsafe controller is not proven safe
abstract
Cyber-physical systems are often safety-critical and their correctness is crucial, such as in the case of automated driving. Using formal mathematical methods is one way to guarantee correctness and improve safety. Although these methods have shown their usefulness, care must be taken because modelling errors might result in proving a faulty controller safe, which is potentially catastrophic in practice. This paper deals with two such modelling errors in differential dynamic logic, a formal specification and verification language for hybrid systems, which are mathematical models of cyber-physical systems. The main contributions are to provide conditions under which these two modelling errors cannot cause a faulty controller to be proven safe, and to show how these conditions can be proven with help of the interactive theorem prover KeYmaera X. The problems are illustrated with a real world example of a safety controller for automated driving, and it is shown that the formulated conditions have the intended effect both for a faulty and a correct controller. It is also shown how the formulated conditions aid in finding a loop invariant candidate to prove properties of hybrid systems with feedback loops. Furthermore, the relation between such a loop invariant and the characterisation of the maximal control invariant set is discussed.
Yuvaraj Selvaraj, Jonas Krook, Wolfgang Ahrendt, Martin Fabian
J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program.1
2023 Hazard Analysis of Collaborative Automation Systems: A Two-layer Approach based on Supervisory Control and Simulation
abstract
Safety critical systems are typically subjected to hazard analysis before commissioning to identify and analyse potentially hazardous system states that may arise during operation. Currently, hazard analysis is mainly based on human reasoning, past experiences, and simple tools such as checklists and spreadsheets. Increasing system complexity makes such approaches decreasingly suitable. Furthermore, testing-based hazard analysis is often not suitable due to high costs or dangers of physical faults. A remedy for this are model-based hazard analysis methods, which either rely on formal models or on simulation models, each with their own benefits and drawbacks. This paper proposes a two-layer approach that combines the benefits of exhaustive analysis using formal methods with detailed analysis using simulation. Unsafe behaviours that lead to unsafe states are first synthesised from a formal model of the system using Supervisory Control Theory. The result is then input to the simulation where detailed analyses using domain-specific risk metrics are performed. Though the presented approach is generally applicable, this paper demonstrates the benefits of the approach on an industrial human-robot collaboration system.
Tom Philip Huck, Yuvaraj Selvaraj, Constantin Cronrath, Christoph Ledermann, Martin Fabian, Bengt Lennartson, Torsten Kröger
ICRA2
2022 On How to Not Prove Faulty Controllers Safe in Differential Dynamic Logic
Yuvaraj Selvaraj, Jonas Krook, Wolfgang Ahrendt, Martin Fabian
ICFEM1
2019 Verification of Decision Making Software in an Autonomous Vehicle: An Industrial Case Study
Yuvaraj Selvaraj, Wolfgang Ahrendt, Martin Fabian
FMICS1