skip to main content
research-article

A Scalable Algebraic Method to Infer Quadratic Invariants of Switched Systems

Published:01 September 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present a new numerical abstract domain based on ellipsoids designed for the formal verification of switched linear systems. Unlike the existing approaches, this domain does not rely on a user-given template. We overcome the difficulty that ellipsoids do not have a lattice structure by exhibiting a canonical operator overapproximating the union. This operator is the only one that permits the performance of analyses that are invariant with respect to a linear transformation of state variables. It provides the minimum volume ellipsoid enclosing two given ellipsoids. We show that it can be computed in O(n3) elementary algebraic operations. We finally develop a fast nonlinear power-type algorithm, which allows one to determine sound quadratic invariants on switched systems in a tractable way, by solving fixed-point problems over the space of ellipsoids. We test our approach on several benchmarks, and compare it with the standard techniques based on linear matrix inequalities, showing an important speedup on typical instances.

References

  1. A. Adjé and P.-L. Garoche. 2015. Automatic synthesis of piecewise linear quadratic invariants for programs. In Proceedings of VMCAI. 99--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Adjé, S. Gaubert, and E. Goubault. 2012. Coupling policy iteration with semi-definite relaxation to compute accurate numerical invariants in static analysis. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. J. Angulo. 2013. Supremum/infimum and nonlinear averaging of positive definite symmetric matrices. In Matrix Information Geometry. Springer, New York, NY, 3--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Bacciotti and L. Mazzi. 2007. Stability of dynamical polysystems via families of Liapunov functions. Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Application 67, 7 (Oct. 2007), 2167--2179.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. K. Ball. 1997. An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. In Flavors of Geometry. Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Vol. 31. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1--58. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2977/prims/1195164788Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Bhatia. 2003. On the exponential metric increasing property. Linear Algebra and its Applications 375, 211--220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Blanchet, P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, D. Monniaux, and X. Rival. 2003. A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI’03). ACM, New York, NY, 196--207. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/781131.781153 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. S. Branicky. 1998. Multiple Lyapunov functions and other analysis tools for switched and hybrid systems. In IEEE TAC, Vol. 43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. B. Burgeth, A. Bruhn, N. Papenberg, M. Welk, and J. Weickert. 2007. Mathematical morphology for matrix fields induced by the Loewner ordering in higher dimensions. Signal Processing 87, 277--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. Cousot. 2005. Proving program invariance and termination by parametric abstraction, Lagrangian relaxation and semidefinite programming. In Proceedings of VMCAI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3385. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. 1977. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings of POPL’77. ACM, 238--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, D. Monniaux, and X. Rival. 2005. The ASTREÉ analyzer. In Proceedings of ESOP’05. 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. 1978. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In Proceedings of POPL’78. ACM, 84--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Feret. 2004. Static analysis of digital filters. In Proceedings of ESOP’04. 33--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. Feron and F. Alegre. 2008a. Control software analysis, Part I: Open-loop properties. CoRR abs/0809.4812.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Feron and F. Alegre. 2008b. Control software analysis, Part II: Closed-loop analysis. CoRR abs/0812.1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Gange, J. A. Navas, P. Schachte, H. Søndergaard, and P. J. Stuckey. 2013. Abstract interpretation over non-lattice abstract domains. In Static Analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7935. Springer, Berlin, 6--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Gaubert and G. Vigeral. 2012. A maximin characterization of the escape rate of nonexpansive mappings in metrically convex spaces. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 152, 341--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. K. Ghorbal, E. Goubault, and S. Putot. 2009. The zonotope abstract domain taylor1+. In Proceedings of CAV’09. 627--633. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan. 2013. Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. Goubault. 2013. Static analysis by abstract interpretation of numerical programs and systems, and FLUCTUAT. In Proceedings of SAS’13. 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M. Johansson and A. Rantzer. 1998. Computation of piecewise quadratic Lyapunov functions for hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 43, 555--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. V. Kozyakin. 2010. Iterative building of Barabanov norms and computation of the joint spectral radius for matrix sets. Discrete and Continuous Dynamic Systems, Series B 14, 1, 143--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. G. Krein and M. A. Rutman. 1948. Linear operators leaving invariant a cone in a Banach space. Uspehi Matematic&cbreve;eskih Nauk 3, 3--95. AMS Translations Number 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. B. Kurzhanski and I. Vályi. 1997. Ellipsoidal Calculus for Estimation and Control. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D. Liberzon. 2003. Switching in Systems and Control. Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. MathWorks Inc. 2007. Polyspace static analyzer. Retrieved July 14, 2016 from http://fr.mathworks.com/ products/polyspace/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. D. Nussbaum. 1988. Hilbert’s projective metric and iterated nonlinear maps. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 75, 391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Oulamara and A. J. Venet. 2015. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’15), Part I, San Francisco, CA, July 18-24, 2015. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Chapter Abstract Interpretation with Higher-Dimensional Ellipsoids and Conic Extrapolation, 415--430. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_24Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Papadopoulos. 2005. Metric Spaces, Convexity and Nonpositive Curvature. European Mathematical Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. P. A. Parrilo and A. Jadbabaie. 2008. Approximation of the joint spectral radius using sum of squares. Linear Algebra and its Applications 428, 10, 2385--2402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. P. Peleties and R. A. DeCarlo. 1991. Asymptotic stability of m-switched systems using Lyapunov-like functions. In Proceedings of ACC. 1679--1684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Rohn. 2005. A Handbook of Results on Interval Linear Problems. http://www.nsc.ru/interval/Library/Surveys/ILinProblems.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Roozbehani, A. Megretski, and E. Feron. 2013. Optimization of Lyapunov invariants in verification of software systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 58, 3, 696--711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. P. Roux. 2013. Analyse Statique De Systèmes De Contrôle Commande, Synthèse d’invariants Non Linéaires. Ph.D. Dissertation. ISAE, Toulouse, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. P. Roux, R. Jobredeaux, P.-L. Garoche, and E. Feron. 2012. A generic ellipsoid abstract domain for linear time invariant systems. In Proceedings of HSCC. 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Sankaranarayanan, H. B. Sipma, and Z. Manna. 2005. Scalable analysis of linear systems using mathematical programming. In Proceedings of VMCAI’05. 25--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. H. R. Shaker and J. P. How. 2010. Stability analysis for class of switched nonlinear systems. In American Control Conference (ACC). Baltimore, MD, 2517--2520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. X. Zhan. 2002. Matrix Inequalities. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1790. Springer, Berlin. viii+116 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Scalable Algebraic Method to Infer Quadratic Invariants of Switched 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!