skip to main content
research-article

Verification of Safety and Liveness Properties of Metric Transition Systems

Published:01 August 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider verification problems for transition systems enriched with a metric structure. We believe that these metric transition systems are particularly suitable for the analysis of cyber-physical systems in which metrics can be naturally defined on the numerical variables of the embedded software and on the continuous states of the physical environment. We consider verification of bounded and unbounded safety properties, as well as bounded liveness properties. The transition systems we consider are nondeterministic, finitely branching, and with a finite set of initial states. Therefore, bounded safety/liveness properties can always be verified by exhaustive exploration of the system trajectories. However, this approach may be intractable in practice, as the number of trajectories usually grows exponentially with respect to the considered bound. Furthermore, since the system we consider can have an infinite set of states, exhaustive exploration cannot be used for unbounded safety verification. For bounded safety properties, we propose an algorithm which combines exploration of the system trajectories and state space reduction using merging based on a bisimulation metric. The main novelty compared to an algorithm presented recently by Lerda et al. [2008] consists in introducing a tuning parameter that improves the performance drastically. We also establish a procedure that allows us to prove unbounded safety from the result of the bounded safety algorithm via a refinement step. We then adapt the algorithm to handle bounded liveness verification. Finally, the effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated by applying it to the analysis of implementations of an embedded control loop.

References

  1. Alur, R., Dang, T., and Ivancic, F. 2003. Progress on reachability analysis of hybrid systems using predicate abstraction. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2623. Springer, Berlin, 4--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Lafferriere, G., and Pappas, G. J. 2000. Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems. Proc. IEEE 88, 2, 971--984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Alur, R., D’Innocenzo, A., Johansson, K. H., Pappas, G. J., and Weiss, G. 2009. Modeling and analysis of multi-hop control networks. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. 223--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Asarin, E., Dang, T., Maler, O., and Bournez, O. 2000. Approximate reachability analysis of piecewise-linear dynamical systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Ssience, vol. 1790. Springer, Berlin, 20--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chutinan, A. and Krogh, B. H. 1999. Verification of polyhedral-invariant hybrid automata using polygonal flow pipe approximations. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1569. Springer, Berlin, 76--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. 2000. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, E. M., Fehnker, A., Han, Z., Krogh, B. H., Stursberg, O., and Theobald, M. 2003. Verification of hybrid systems based on counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Lecture Note in Computer Science, vol. 2619. Springer, Berlin, 192--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. de Alfaro, L., Faella, M., and Stoelinga, M. 2004. Linear and branching metrics for quantitative transition systems. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3142. Springer, Berlin, 97--109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Donzé, A. and Maler, O. 2007. Systematic simulation using sensitivity analysis. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4416. Springer, Berlin, 174--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Frehse, G. 2005. PHAVer: Algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3414. Springer, Berlin, 258--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Girard, A. 2005. Reachability of uncertain linear systems using zonotopes. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3414. Springer, Berlin, 291--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Girard, A. and Pappas, G. J. 2006. Verification using simulation. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3927. Springer, Berlin, 272--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Girard, A. and Pappas, G. J. 2007. Approximation metrics for discrete and continuous systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 52, 5, 782--798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Girard, A., Le Guernic, C., and Maler, O. 2006. Efficient computation of reachable sets of linear time-invariant systems with inputs. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3927. Springer, Berlin 257--271. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Gulwani, S. and Tiwari, A. 2008. Constraint-based approach for analysis of hybrid systems. In Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5123. Springer, Berlin, 190--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Henzinger, T. A., Ho, P.-H., and Wong-Toi, H. 1997. HyTech: A model checker for hybrid systems. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 1, 110--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Julius, A. A. and Pappas, G. J. 2009. Trajectory based verification using local finite-time invariance. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5469. Springer, Berlin, 223--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Julius, A. A., Fainekos, G. E., Anand, M., Lee, I., and Pappas, G. J. 2007. Robust test generation and coverage for hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4416. Springer, Berlin, 329--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kapinski, J., Krogh, B. H., Maler, O., and Stursberg, O. 2003. On systematic simulation of open continuous systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2623. Springer, Berlin, 283--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kurzhanski, A. B. and Varaiya, P. 2000. Ellipsoidal techniques for reachability analysis. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1790. Springer, Berlin, 202--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Le Guernic, C. and Girard, A. 2009. Reachability analysis of hybrid systems using support functions. In Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5643. Springer, Berlin, 540--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lerda, F., Kapinski, J., Clarke, E., and Krogh, B. H. 2008. Verification of supervisory control software using state proximity and merging. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4981. Springer, Berlin, 344--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Maler, O., Krogh, B. H., and Mahfoudh, M. 2002. On control with bounded computational resources. In Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2469. Springer, Berlin, 147--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Milner, R. 1989. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Platzer, A. and Clarke, E. M. 2008. Computing differential invariants of hybrid systems as fixedpoints. In Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5123. Springer, Berlin, 176--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Prajna, S. and Jadbabaie, A. 2004. Safety verification of hybrid systems using barrier certificates. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2993. Springer, Berlin, 477--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratschan, S. and She, Z. 2005. Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation based abstraction refinement. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3414. Springer, Berlin, 573--589. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H., and Manna, Z. 2004. Constructing invariants for hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2993. Springer, Berlin 539--554.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Stursberg, O. and Krogh, B. H. 2003. Efficient representation and computation of reachable sets for hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2623. Springer, Berlin, 482--497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Tiwari, A. 2008. Abstractions for hybrid systems. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 32, 1, 57--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Tomlin, C., Mitchell, I., Bayen, A. M., and Oishi, M. 2003. Computational techniques for the verification of hybrid systems. Proc. IEEE 91, 7, 986--1001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Weiss, G. and Alur, R. 2007. Automata based interfaces for control and scheduling. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4416. Springer, Berlin, 601--613. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Yazarel, H., Girard, A., Pappas, G. J., and Alur, R. 2005. Quantifying the gap between embedded control models and time-triggered implementations. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium. 111--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Zheng, G. and Girard, A. 2009. Bounded and unbounded safety verification using bisimulation metrics. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5469. Springer, Berlin, 426--440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Verification of Safety and Liveness Properties of Metric Transition Systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!