skip to main content
research-article

Simulation-Driven Reachability Using Matrix Measures

Published:06 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Simulation-driven verification can provide formal safety guarantees for otherwise intractable nonlinear and hybrid system models. A key step in simulation-driven algorithms is to compute the reach set overapproximations from a set of initial states through numerical simulations and sensitivity analysis. This article addresses this problem by providing algorithms for computing discrepancy functions as the upper bound on the sensitivity, that is, the rate at which trajectories starting from neighboring states converge or diverge. The algorithms rely on computing local bounds on matrix measures as the exponential change rate of the discrepancy function. We present two techniques to compute the matrix measures under different norms: regular Euclidean norm or Euclidean norm under coordinate transformation, such that the exponential rate of the discrepancy function, and therefore, the conservativeness of the overapproximation, is locally minimized. The proposed algorithms enable automatic reach set computations of general nonlinear systems and have been successfully used on several challenging benchmark models. All proposed algorithms for computing discrepancy functions give soundness and relative completeness of the overall simulation-driven safety-bounded verification algorithm. We present a series of experiments to illustrate the accuracy and performance of the algorithms.

References

  1. James Anderson and Antonis Papachristodoulou. 2010. Dynamical system decomposition for efficient, sparse analysis. In CDC (2010). IEEE, 6565--6570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. David Angeli. 2002. A Lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 47, 3 (2002), 410--421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. David Angeli, Eduardo D. Sontag, and Yuan Wang. 2000. A characterization of integral input-to-state stability. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 45, 6 (2000), 1082--1097.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nikos Aréchiga, James Kapinski, Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, André Platzer, and Bruce Krogh. 2015. Numerically-aided deductive safety proof for a powertrain control system. Elect. Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci. 317 (2015), 19--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nels E. Beckman, Aditya V. Nori, Sriram K. Rajamani, Robert J. Simmons, Sai Deep Tetali, and Aditya V. Thakur. 2010. Proofs from tests. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 4 (2010), 495--508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. V. A. Boichenko and G. A. Leonov. 1998. Lyapunov’s direct method in estimates of topological entropy. J. Math. Sci. 91, 6 (1998), 3370--3379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Stephen Boyd, Laurent El Ghaoui, Eric Feron, and Venkataramanan Balakrishnan. 1994. Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. Studies in Applied Mathematics (1994), Vol. 15. SIAM, Philadelphia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Bozzano, A. Cimatti, A. Fernandes Pires, D. Jones, G. Kimberly, T. Petri, R. Robinson, and S. Tonetta. 2015. Formal design and safety analysis of AIR6110 wheel brake system. In CAV (2015). Springer, 518--535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. CAPD. 2002. Computer assisted proofs in dynamics. Retrieved from http://www.capd.ii.uj.edu.pl/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Xin Chen, Erika Ábrahám, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2013. Flow*: An analyzer for non-linear hybrid systems. In CAV (2013). Springer, 258--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Yi Deng, Akshay Rajhans, and A. Agung Julius. 2013. Strong: A trajectory-based verification toolbox for hybrid systems. In QEST (2013). Springer, 165--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Charles A. Desoer and Mathukumalli Vidyasagar. 1975. Feedback Systems: Input-Output Properties. Vol. 55. SIAM (1975). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Alexandre Donzé. 2015. Breach, a toolbox for verification and parameter synthesis of hybrid systems. In CAV (2015). Springer, 167--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alexandre Donzé and Oded Maler. 2007. Systematic simulation using sensitivity analysis. In HSCC (2007). Springer, 174--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Parasara Sridhar Duggirala, Chuchu Fan, Sayan Mitra, and Mahesh Viswanathan. 2015. Meeting a powertrain verification challenge. In CAV (2015). Springer, 536--543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Parasara Sridhar Duggirala, Sayan Mitra, and Mahesh Viswanathan. 2013. Verification of annotated models from executions. In EMSOFT (2013). IEEE Press, 26:1--26:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Parasara Sridhar Duggirala, Sayan Mitra, Mahesh Viswanathan, and Matthew Potok. 2015. C2E2: A verification tool for stateflow models. In TACAS (2015). Springer, 68--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Parasara Sridhar Duggirala, Le Wang, Sayan Mitra, Mahesh Viswanathan, and César Muñoz. 2014. Temporal precedence checking for switched models and its application to a parallel landing protocol. In Formal Methods (2014). Springer, 215--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. El-Guindy, D. Han, and M. Althoff. 2016. Formal analysis of drum-boiler units to maximize the load-following capabilities of power plants. IEEE Trans. on Power Syst. (2016), vol. 31, 6, 4691--4702.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Chuchu Fan, James Kapinski, Xiaoqing Jin, and Sayan Mitra. 2016. Locally optimal reach set over-approximation for nonlinear systems. In EMSOFT (2016). ACM, 6:1--6:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Chuchu Fan and Sayan Mitra. 2015. Bounded verification with on-the-fly discrepancy computation. In ATVA (2015). Springer, 446--463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Raena Farhadsefat, Ji Rohn, and Taher Lotfi. 2011. Norms of Interval Matrices. Technical Report No. V-1122 (2011). Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CAV (2011), Shaz Qadeer Ganesh Gopalakrishnan (Ed.). Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Antoine Girard, Giordano Pola, and Paulo Tabuada. 2010. Approximately bisimilar symbolic models for incrementally stable switched systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 55, 1 (2010), 116--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan. 1996. Matrix Computations (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press (1996), Baltimore, MD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ashutosh Gupta, Rupak Majumdar, and Andrey Rybalchenko. 2009. From tests to proofs. In TACAS (2009). Springer, 262--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Zhenqi Huang, Chuchu Fan, Alexandru Mereacre, Sayan Mitra, and Marta Z. Kwiatkowska. 2014. Invariant verification of nonlinear hybrid automata networks of cardiac cells. In CAV (2014). Springer, 373--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Zhenqi Huang and Sayan Mitra. 2014. Proofs from simulations and modular annotations. In HSCC (2014). ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Zhihao Jiang, Miroslav Pajic, Salar Moarref, Rajeev Alur, and Rahul Mangharam. 2012. Modeling and verification of a dual chamber implantable pacemaker. In TACAS (2012). Springer, 188--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. A. Agung Julius, Georgios E. Fainekos, Madhukar Anand, Insup Lee, and George J. Pappas. 2007. Robust test generation and coverage for hybrid systems. In HSCC (2007). Springer, 329--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Agung Julius and George J. Pappas. 2009. Trajectory based verification using local finite-time invariance. In HSCC (2009). Springer, 223--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. James Kapinski, Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, Sriram Sankaranarayanan, and Nikos Aréchiga. 2014. Simulation-guided lyapunov analysis for hybrid dynamical systems. In HSCC (2014). ACM, 133--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Soonho Kong, Sicun Gao, Wei Chen, and Edmund Clarke. 2015. dReach: -reachability analysis for hybrid systems. In TACAS (2015). Springer, 200--205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Alexander Kurzhanskii and István Vályi. 2012. Ellipsoidal Calculus for Estimation and Control. Nelson Thornes (1997).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Daniel Liberzon. 2012. Switching in Systems and Control. Springer Science 8 Business Media (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. J. Löfberg. 2004. YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In CACSD (2004). Retrieved from http://users.isy.liu.se/johanl/yalmip/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Winfried Lohmiller and Jean-Jacques E. Slotine. 1998. On contraction analysis for non-linear systems. Automatica 34, 6 (1998), 683--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. John Maidens and Murat Arcak. 2015. Reachability analysis of nonlinear systems using matrix measures. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 60, 1 (2015), 265--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Ned Nedialkov. 2006. VNODE-LP: Validated Solutions for Initial Value Problem for ODEs. Technical Report (2006). McMaster University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Antonis Papachristodoulou and Stephen Prajna. 2005. Analysis of non-polynomial systems using the sum of squares decomposition. In Positive Polynomials in Control (2005). Springer, 23--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Eduardo D. Sontag. 2010. Contractive systems with inputs. In Perspectives in Mathematical System Theory, Control, and Signal Processing (2010). Springer, 217--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Romain Testylier and Thao Dang. 2013. NLTOOLBOX: A library for reachability computation of nonlinear dynamical systems. In ATVA (2013). Springer, 469--473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Reha H. Tütüncü, Kim C. Toh, and Michael J. Todd. 2003. Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using SDPT3. Math. Program. 95, 2 (2003), 189--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Mahdi Zamani, Giordano Pola, Manuel Mazo, and Paulo Tabuada. 2012. Symbolic models for nonlinear control systems without stability assumptions. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 57, 7 (2012), 1804--1809.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Simulation-Driven Reachability Using Matrix Measures

    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!