skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Operational Models for Piecewise-Smooth Systems

Published:10 October 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article we study ways of constructing meaningful operational models of piecewise-smooth systems (PWS). The systems we consider are described by polynomial vector fields defined on non-overlapping semi-algebraic sets, which form a partition of the state space. Our approach is to give meaning to motion in systems of this type by automatically synthesizing operational models in the form of hybrid automata (HA). Despite appearances, it is in practice often difficult to arrive at satisfactory HA models of PWS. The different ways of building operational models that we explore in our approach can be thought of as defining different semantics for the underlying PWS. These differences have a number of interesting nuances related to phenomena such as chattering, non-determinism, so-called mythical modes and sliding behaviour.

References

  1. Rajeev Alur, Costas Courcoubetis, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Pei-Hsin Ho. 1992. Hybrid Automata: An Algorithmic Approach to the Specification and Verification of Hybrid Systems. In Hybrid Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Robert L. Grossman, Anil Nerode, Anders P. Ravn, and Hans Rischel (Eds.), Vol. 736. Springer, 209--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aaron D. Ames, Alessandro Abate, and Shankar Sastry. 2005. Sufficient Conditions for the Existence of Zeno Behavior. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. 696--701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Saugata Basu, Richard Pollack, and Marie-Françoise Roy. 2006. Algorithms in Real Algebraic Geometry (Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics) (2 ed.). Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bob F. Caviness and Jeremy R. Johnson. 1998. Quantifier Elimination and Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Xin Chen, Erika Ábrahám, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2013. Flow*: An Analyzer for Non-linear Hybrid Systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’13). Springer, 258--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. George E. Collins. 1975. Quantifier elimination for real closed fields by cylindrical algebraic decompostion. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 33. Springer, 134--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Charles C. Conley. 1978. Isolated invariant sets and the Morse index. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jorge Cortés. 2008. Discontinuous dynamical systems: A tutorial on solutions, non-smooth analysis and stability. IEEE Control Systems 28, 3 (2008), 36--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. David Cox, John Little, and Donal O’Shea. 2010. Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. James H. Davenport and Joos Heintz. 1988. Real Quantifier Elimination is Doubly Exponential. J. Symb. Comput. 5, 1--2 (Feb. 1988), 29--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jennifer M. Davoren and Anil Nerode. 2000. Logics for hybrid systems. Proc. IEEE 88, 7 (2000), 985--1010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Magnus Egerstedt. 2000. Behavior Based Robotics Using Hybrid Automata. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC’00). Springer, 103--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Goran Frehse. 2015. An Introduction to Hybrid Automata, Numerical Simulation and Reachability Analysis. Springer, 50--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Goran Frehse, Colas Le Guernic, Alexandre Donzé, Scott Cotton, Rajarshi Ray, Olivier Lebeltel, Rodolfo Ripado, Antoine Girard, Thao Dang, and Oded Maler. 2011. SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11). Springer, 379--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Nathan Fulton, Stefan Mitsch, Jan-David Quesel, Marcus Völp, and André Platzer. 2015. KeYmaera X: An Axiomatic Tactical Theorem Prover for Hybrid Systems. In Automated Deduction - CADE-25: 25th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Berlin, Germany, August 1-7, 2015, Proceedings (Lecutre Notes in Computer Science), Amy P. Felty and Aart Middeldorp (Eds.), Vol. 9195. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Khalil Ghorbal and André Platzer. 2014. Characterizing Algebraic Invariants by Differential Radical Invariants. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 20th International Conference, TACAS 2014, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13, 2014. Proceedings. 279--294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Khalil Ghorbal, Andrew Sogokon, and André Platzer. 2017. A hierarchy of proof rules for checking positive invariance of algebraic and semi-algebraic sets. Computer Languages, Systems 8 Structures 47 (2017), 19--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rafal Goebel, Ricardo G. Sanfelice, and Andrew R. Teel. 2009. Hybrid dynamical systems. IEEE Control Systems 29, 2 (2009), 28--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Otomar Hájek. 1979. Discontinuous differential equations I. Journal of Differential Equations 32, 2 (1979), 149--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jack K. Hale and Joseph P. LaSalle. 1963. Differential Equations: Linearity vs. Nonlinearity. SIAM Rev. 5, 3 (July 1963), 249--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Philip Hartman. 1964. Ordinary Differential Equations. John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas A. Henzinger. 1996. The Theory of Hybrid Automata. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’96). IEEE Computer Society, 278--292. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Karl H. Johansson, Magnus Egerstedt, John Lygeros, and Shankar Sastry. 1999. On the regularization of Zeno hybrid automata. Systems 8 Control Letters 38, 3 (1999), 141--150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Soonho Kong, Sicun Gao, Wei Chen, and Edmund M. Clarke. 2015. dReach: -Reachability Analysis for Hybrid Systems. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 21st International Conference, TACAS 2015, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2015, London, UK, April 11-18, 2015. Proceedings. Springer, 200--205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jiang Liu, Naijun Zhan, and Hengjun Zhao. 2011. Computing Semi-algebraic Invariants for Polynomial Dynamical Systems. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT’11). ACM, 97--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. John Lygeros, Karl H. Johansson, Shankar Sastry, and Magnus Egerstedt. 1999. On the existence of executions of hybrid automata. In the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Phoenix, AZ. IEEE, 2249--2254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. John Lygeros, Karl H. Johansson, Slobodan N. Simić, Jun Zhang, and S. Shankar Sastry. 2003. Dynamical properties of hybrid automata. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 48, 1 (Jan 2003), 2--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Bhubaneswar Mishra. 1993. Algorithmic Algebra. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pieter J. Mosterman. 2003. Mode Transition Behavior in Hybrid Dynamic Systems. In Proc. of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, S. Chick, P. J. Sánchez, D. Ferrin, and D. J. Morrice (Eds.). 623--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Pieter J. Mosterman and Gautam Biswas. 1998. A theory of discontinuities in physical system models. Journal of the Franklin Institute 335, 3 (1998), 401--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Pieter J. Mosterman, Feng Zhao, and Gautam Biswas. 1998. An Ontology for Transitions in Physical Dynamic Systems. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Tenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 98, IAAI 98, July 26-30, 1998, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 219--224. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1998/aaai98-030.php Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Eva M. Navarro-López and Rebekah Carter. 2011. Hybrid automata: an insight into the discrete abstraction of discontinuous systems. International Journal of Systems Science 42, 11 (2011), 1883--1898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Dmitri Novikov and Sergei Yakovenko. 1999. Trajectories of polynomial vector fields and ascending chains of polynomial ideals. In Annales de l’institut Fourier, Vol. 49. 563--609.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. André Platzer. 2008. Differential Dynamic Logic for Hybrid Systems.J. Autom. Reas. 41, 2 (2008), 143--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. André Platzer. 2010. Logical Analysis of Hybrid Systems: Proving Theorems for Complex Dynamics. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ricardo G. Sanfelice, Rafal Goebel, and Andrew R. Teel. 2008. Generalized solutions to hybrid dynamical systems. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations 14 (10 2008), 699--724. Issue 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Abraham Seidenberg. 1954. A new decision method for elementary algebra. Annals of Mathematics (1954), 365--374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Alfred Tarski. 1951. A decision method for elementary algebra and geometry. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 59 (1951).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerald Teschl. 2012. Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 140. American Mathematical Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ashish Tiwari. 2008. Abstractions for hybrid systems. Formal Methods in System Design 32, 1 (2008), 57--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vadim I. Utkin. 1992. Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Arjan J. Van Der Schaft and Hans Schumacher. 2000. An introduction to hybrid dynamical systems. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Vol. 251. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Shuling Wang, Naijun Zhan, and Liang Zou. 2015. An Improved HHL Prover: An Interactive Theorem Prover for Hybrid Systems. Springer, 382--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Hans S. Witsenhausen. 1966. A class of hybrid-state continuous-time dynamic systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 11, 2 (Apr 1966), 161--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Feng Zhao and Vadim I. Utkin. 1996. Adaptive simulation and control of variable-structure control systems in sliding regimes. Automatica 32, 7 (1996), 1037--1042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Operational Models for Piecewise-Smooth 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!