skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Specification Mining and Robust Design under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Temporal Logic Approach

Published:08 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this paper, we propose Stochastic Temporal Logic (StTL) as a formalism for expressing probabilistic specifications on time-varying behaviors of controlled stochastic dynamical systems. To make StTL a more effective specification formalism, we introduce the quantitative semantics for StTL to reason about the robust satisfaction of an StTL specification by a given system. Additionally, we propose using the robustness value as the objective function to be maximized by a stochastic optimization algorithm for the purpose of controller design. Finally, we formulate an algorithm for parameter inference for Parameteric-StTL specifications, which allows specifications to be mined from output traces of the underlying system. We demonstrate and validate our framework on two case studies inspired by the automotive domain.

References

  1. A. Abate, A. D’Innocenzo, and M. D. Di Benedetto. 2011. Approximate abstractions of stochastic hybrid systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 56, 11 (Nov 2011), 2688--2694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. D. Aksaray, A. Jones, Z. Kong, M. Schwager, and C. Belta. 2016. Q-learning for robust satisfaction of signal temporal logic specifications. In IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). 6565--6570.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Matthias Althoff, Olaf Stursberg, and Martin Buss. 2009. Model-based probabilistic collision detection in autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 10 (2009), 299--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eugene Asarin, Alexandre Donzé, Oded Maler, and Dejan Nickovic. 2011. Parametric identification of temporal properties. In Proceedings of Runtime Verification. 147--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Eugene Asarin and Oded Maler. 1998. Achilles and the tortoise climbing up the arithmetical hierarchy. J. Comput. System Sci. 57, 3 (1998), 389--398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Christel Baier, Marcus Größer, Martin Leucker, Benedikt Bollig, and Frank Ciesinski. 2004. Controller synthesis for probabilistic systems. In Exploring New Frontiers of Theoretical Informatics. Springer, 493--506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexey Bakhirkin, Thomas Ferrère, and Oded Maler. 2018. Efficient parametric identification for STL. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 177--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ezio Bartocci, Luca Bortolussi, Laura Nenzi, and Guido Sanguinetti. 2013. On the robustness of temporal properties for stochastic models. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Hybrid Systems and Biology, HSB 2013, Taormina, Italy, 2nd September 2013.3--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tomáš Brázdil, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Martin Chmelík, Vojtěch Forejt, Jan Křetínský, Marta Kwiatkowska, David Parker, and Mateusz Ujma. 2014. Verification of Markov decision processes using learning algorithms. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. 98--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Chris Chatfield. 2016. The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gang Chen, Zachary Sabato, and Zhaodan Kong. 2016. Active learning based requirement mining for cyber-physical systems. In IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC’16). 4586--4593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Edmund M Clarke and Paolo Zuliani. 2011. Statistical model checking for cyber-physical systems. In International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. Springer, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, Panagiotis Kyriakis, and Paul Bogdan. 2018. Stochastic temporal logic abstractions: Challenges and opportunities. In International Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems. Springer, 3--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jerry Ding, Maryam Kamgarpour, Sean Summers, Alessandro Abate, John Lygeros, and Claire Tomlin. 2013. A stochastic games framework for verification and control of discrete time stochastic hybrid systems. Automatica 49, 9 (2013), 2665--2674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Alexandre Donzé, Thomas Ferrère, and Oded Maler. 2013. Efficient robust monitoring for STL. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (Proceedings of Computer-Aided Verification’13). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 264--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Alexandre Donzé, Thomas Ferrère, and Oded Maler. 2013. Efficient robust monitoring for STL. In Proceedings of Computer-Aided Verification. 264--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Georgios E. Fainekos and George J. Pappas. 2009. Robustness of temporal logic specifications for continuous-time signals. Theoretical Computer Science 410, 42 (2009), 4262--4291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jie Fu and Ufuk Topcu. 2015. Computational methods for stochastic control with metric interval temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 7440--7447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mahboobeh Ghorbani and Paul Bogdan. 2014. Reducing risk of closed loop control of blood glucose in artificial pancreas using fractional calculus. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. IEEE, 4839--4842.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Hans Hansson and Bengt Jonsson. 1994. A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 5 (1 Sep 1994), 512--535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bardh Hoxha, Houssam Abbas, and Georgios Fainekos. 2015. Benchmarks for temporal logic requirements for automotive systems. In ARCH14-15. 1st and 2nd International Workshop on Applied veRification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems (EPiC Series in Computing), Goran Frehse and Matthias Althoff (Eds.), Vol. 34. EasyChair, 25--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Bardh Hoxha, Adel Dokhanchi, and Georgios Fainekos. 2018. Mining parametric temporal logic properties in model-based design for cyber-physical systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 20, 1 (2018), 79--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Susmit Jha, Vasumathi Raman, Dorsa Sadigh, and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2018. Safe autonomy under perception uncertainty using chance-constrained temporal logic. J. Autom. Reason. 60, 1 (Jan. 2018), 43--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Xiaoqing Jin, Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, James Kapinski, Koichi Ueda, and Ken Butts. 2014. Powertrain control verification benchmark. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 253--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Xiaoqing Jin, Alexandre Donzé, Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh, and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2015. Mining requirements from closed-loop control models. IEEE Trans. Comp. Aided Design 34, 11 (2015), 1704--1717.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Austin Jones, Zhaodan Kong, and Calin Belta. 2014. Anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems: A formal methods approach. In 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 848--853.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. A. A. Julius and G. J. Pappas. 2009. Approximations of stochastic hybrid systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 54, 6 (June 2009), 1193--1203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Kamgarpour, J. Ding, S. Summers, A. Abate, J. Lygeros, and C. Tomlin. 2011. Discrete time stochastic hybrid dynamical games: Verification 8 controller synthesis. In 2011 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference. 6122--6127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Kapinski, X. Jin, J. Deshmukh, A. Donzé, T. Yamaguchi, H. Ito, T. Kaga, S. Kobuna, and S. A. Seshia. 2016. ST-Lib: A library for specifying and classifying model behaviors. In SAE Technical Paper. SAE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhaodan Kong, Austin Jones, Ana Medina Ayala, Ebru Aydin Gol, and Calin Belta. 2014. Temporal logic inference for classification and prediction from data. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 273--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Lahijanian, S. B. Andersson, and C. Belta. 2011. Control of Markov decision processes from PCTL specifications. In Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. 311--316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Axel Legay, Benoît Delahaye, and Saddek Bensalem. 2010. Statistical model checking: An overview. In International Conference on Runtime Verification. Springer, 122--135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Julien Legriel, Colas Le Guernic, Scott Cotton, and Oded Maler. 2010. Approximating the pareto front of multi-criteria optimization problems. In Proceedings of TACAS. 69--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jiwei Li, Pierluigi Nuzzo, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Yugeng Xi, and Dewei Li. 2017. Stochastic contracts for cyber-physical system design under probabilistic requirements. In ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Formal Methods and Models for System Design.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Oded Maler. 2017. Learning Monotone Partitions of Partially-Ordered Domains (Work in Progress). (July 2017). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01556243 working paper or preprint.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Oded Maler and Dejan Nickovic. 2004. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In Proceedings of FORMATS/FTRTFT. 152--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Aurélien Rizk, Grégory Batt, François Fages, and Sylvain Soliman. 2008. On a continuous degree of satisfaction of temporal logic formulae with applications to systems biology. In Computational Methods in Systems Biology, Monika Heiner and Adelinde M. Uhrmacher (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 251--268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Hendrik Roehm, Rainer Gmehlich, Thomas Heinz, Jens Oehlerking, and Matthias Woehrle. 2015. Industrial examples of formal specifications for test case generation. In Workshop on Applied veRification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems, [email protected] 2015. 80--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dorsa Sadigh and Ashish Kapoor. 2016. Safe control under uncertainty with probabilistic signal temporal logic. In Robotics Science and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Yuhui Shi and Russell C. Eberhart. 1998. Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization. In Evolutionary Programming VII, V. W. Porto, N. Saravanan, D. Waagen, and A. E. Eiben (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 591--600.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Bernard W. Silverman. 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Vol. 26. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. R. Verma, D. D. Vecchio, and H. K. Fathy. 2008. Development of a scaled vehicle with longitudinal dynamics of an HMMWV for an ITS testbed. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 13, 1 (Feb 2008), 46--57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2008.915820Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Yuankun Xue and Paul Bogdan. 2017. Constructing compact causal mathematical models for complex dynamics. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS’17). 97--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Xiaobin Zhang, Bo Wu, and Hai Lin. 2015. Learning based supervisor synthesis of pomdp for pctl specifications. In IEEE 54th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC’15). IEEE, 7470--7475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Specification Mining and Robust Design under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Temporal Logic Approach

                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

                HTML Format

                View this article in HTML Format .

                View HTML Format
                About Cookies On This Site

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

                Learn more

                Got it!