skip to main content
article

Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation-based abstraction refinement

Published:01 February 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of safety verification of nonlinear hybrid systems. We start from a classical method that uses interval arithmetic to check whether trajectories can move over the boundaries in a rectangular grid. We put this method into an abstraction refinement framework and improve it by developing an additional refinement step that employs interval-constraint propagation to add information to the abstraction without introducing new grid elements. Moreover, the resulting method allows switching conditions, initial states, and unsafe states to be described by complex constraints, instead of sets that correspond to grid elements. Nevertheless, the method can be easily implemented, since it is based on a well-defined set of constraints, on which one can run any constraint propagation-based solver. Tests of such an implementation are promising.

References

  1. Alur, R., Dang, T., and Ivančić, F. 2002. Reachability analysis of hybrid systems via predicate abstraction. See Tomlin and Greenstreet {2002}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alur, R., Dang, T., and Ivančić, F. 2003. Counter-example guided predicate abstraction of hybrid systems. In TACAS, H. Garavel and J. Hatcliff, Eds. LNCS, vol. 2619. Springer, New York. 208--223.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alur, R. and Pappas, G. J., Eds. 2004. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Number 2993 in LNCS. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Apt, K. R. 1999. The essence of constraint propagation. Theoretical Computer Science 221, 1--2, 179--210.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Asarin, E., Dang, T., and Maler, O. 2002. The d/dt tool for verification of hybrid systems. In CAV'02. Number 2404 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 365--370.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhamou, F. 1996. Heterogeneous constraint solving. In Proc. of the Fifth International Conference on Algebraic and Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 1139. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Benhamou, F. and Older, W. J. 1997. Applying interval arithmetic to real, integer and Boolean constraints. Journal of Logic Programming 32, 1, 1--24.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Benhamou, F., McAllester, D., and Van Hentenryck, P. 1994. CLP(Intervals) revisited. In International Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press, Ithaca, NY. 124--138.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Caviness, B. F. and Johnson, J. R., Eds. 1998. Quantifier Elimination and Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition. Springer, Wien.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Chutinan, A. and Krogh, B. H. 1999. Verification of polyhedral-invariant hybrid automata using polygonal flow pipe approximations. See Vaandrager and van Schuppen {1999}. 76--90.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, E., Fehnker, A., Han, Z., Krogh, B., Ouaknine, J., Stursberg, O., and Theobald, M. 2003a. Abstraction and counterexample-guided refinement in model checking of hybrid systems. Int. Journal of Foundations of Comp. Science 14, 4, 583--604.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Clarke, E., Fehnker, A., Han, Z., Krogh, B., Stursberg, O., and Theobald, M. 2003b. Verification of hybrid systems based on counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In TACAS 2003, H. Garavel and J. Hatcliff, Eds. Number 2619 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 192--207.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., and Veith, H. 2003c. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. Journal of the ACM 50, 5, 752--794.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cleary, J. G. 1987. Logical arithmetic. Future Computing Systems 2, 2, 125--149.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, G. E. and Hong, H. 1991. Partial cylindrical algebraic decomposition for quantifier elimination. Journal of Symbolic Computation 12, 299--328. Also in Caviness and Johnson {1998}.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Damm, W., Pinto, G., and Ratschan, S. 2005. Guaranteed termination in the verification of LTL properties of nonlinear robust discrete time hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, D. A. Peled and Y.-K. Tsay, Eds. Number 3707 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 99--113.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, E. 1987. Constraint propagation with interval labels. Artificial Intelligence 32, 3, 281--331.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fehnker, A. and Ivanćić, F. 2004. Benchmarks for hybrid systems verification. See Alur and Pappas {2004}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fränzle, M. 1999. Analysis of hybrid systems: An ounce of realism can save an infinity of states. In Computer Science Logic (CSL'99), J. Flum and M. Rodriguez-Artalejo, Eds. Number 1683 in LNCS. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Frehse, G. 2005. PHAVer: Algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech. See Morari and Thiele {2005}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Girard, A. 2005. Reachability of uncertain linear systems using zonotopes. See Morari and Thiele {2005}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Henzinger, T. A., Kopke, P. W., Puri, A., and Varaiya, P. 1998. What's decidable about hybrid automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 57, 94--124.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Henzinger, T. A., Horowitz, B., Majumdar, R., and Wong-Toi, H. 2000. Beyond HyTech: hybrid systems analysis using interval numerical methods. See Lynch and Krogh {2000}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hickey, T. and Wittenberg, D. 2004. Rigorous modeling of hybrid systems using interval arithmetic constraints. See Alur and Pappas {2004}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Hickey, T. J. smathlib. http://interval.sourceforge.net/interval/prolog/clip/clip/smath/README.%html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hickey, T. J. 2000. Analytic constraint solving and interval arithmetic. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, New York. 338--351.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Hickey, T. J. 2001. Metalevel interval arithmetic and verifiable constraint solving. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 2001, 7 (Oct.).]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hickey, T. J., van Emden, M. H., and Wu, H. 1998. A unified framework for interval constraint and interval arithmetic. In CP'98, M. Maher and J. Puget, Eds. Number 1520 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 250--264.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hickey, T. J., Ju, Q., and van Emden, M. H. 2001. Interval arithmetic: from principles to implementation. Journal of the ACM 48, 5, 1038--1068.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jaulin, L., Kieffer, M., Didrit, O., and Walter, É. 2001. Applied Interval Analysis, with Examples in Parameter and State Estimation, Robust Control and Robotics. Springer, Berlin.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kurzhanski, A. and Varaiya, P. 2000. Ellipsoidal techniques for reachability analysis. See Lynch and Krogh {2000}. 202--214.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Lebbah, Y., Rueher, M., and Michel, C. 2002. A global filtering algorithm for handling systems of quadratic equations and inequations. In Proc. of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2002), P. Van Hentenryck, Ed. Number 2470 in LNCS. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lhomme, O. 1993. Consistency techniques for numeric CSPs. In Proc. 13th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lhomme, O., Gotlieb, A., and Rueher, M. 1998. Dynamic optimization of interval narrowing algorithms. Journal of Logic Programming 37, 1--3, 165--183.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Lynch, N. and Krogh, B., Eds. 2000. Proc. HSCC'00. LNCS, vol. 1790. Springer, New York.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackworth, A. K. 1977. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence 8, 99--118.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mitchell, I. and Tomlin, C. J. 2000. Level set methods for computation in hybrid systems. See Lynch and Krogh {2000}. 310--323.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Morari, M. and Thiele, L., Eds. 2005. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. LNCS, vol. 3414. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Neumaier, A. 1990. Interval Methods for Systems of Equations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Older, W. and Benhamou, F. 1993. Programming in CLP(BNR). In 1st Workshop on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Preussig, J., Kowalewski, S., Wong-Toi, H., and Henzinger, T. 1998. An algorithm for the approximative analysis of rectangular automata. In 5th Int. School and Symp. on Formal Techniques in Fault Tolerant and Real Time Systems. Number 1486 in LNCS. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Preussig, J., Stursberg, O., and Kowalewski, S. 1999. Reachability analysis of a class of switched continuous systems by integrating rectangular approximation and rectangular analysis. See Vaandrager and van Schuppen {1999}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Puri, A. and Varaiya, P. 1995. Driving safely in smart cars. In Proc. of the 1995 American Control Conference. 3597--3599.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ratschan, S. 2002. Continuous first-order constraint satisfaction. In Artificial Intelligence, Automated Reasoning, and Symbolic Computation, J. Calmet, B. Benhamou, O. Caprotti, L. Henocque, and V. Sorge, Eds. Number 2385 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 181--195.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ratschan, S. 2004. RSolver. http://rsolver.sourceforge.net. Software package.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ratschan, S. and She, Z. 2004. Hsolver. http://hsolver.sourceforge.net. Software package.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Ratschan, S. and She, Z. 2005. Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation based abstraction refinement. See Morari and Thiele {2005}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Stursberg, O. and Kowalewski, S. 1999. Approximating switched continuous systems by rectangular automata. In Proc. European Control Conference. Paper-ID: F1014-4.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Stursberg, O. and Kowalewski, S. 2000. Analysis of controlled hybrid processing systems based on approximation by timed automata using interval arithmetic. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED 2000).]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Stursberg, O., Kowalewski, S., Hoffmann, I., and Preussig, J. 1997. Comparing timed and hybrid automata as approximations of continuous systems. In Hybrid Systems, P. J. Antsaklis, W. Kohn, A. Nerode, and S. Sastry, Eds. Number 1273 in LNCS. Springer, New York. 361--377.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Stursberg, O., Kowalewski, S., and Engell, S. 2000. On the generation of timed discrete approximations for continuous systems. Mathematical and Computer Models of Dynamical Systems 6, 51--70.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Tiwari, A. 2003. Approximate reachability for linear systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC), O. Maler and A. Pnueli, Eds. LNCS, vol. 2623. Springer, New York.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Tiwari, A. and Khanna, G. 2002. Series of abstractions for hybrid automata. See Tomlin and Greenstreet {2002}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomlin, C. J. and Greenstreet, M. R., Eds. 2002. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control HSCC. Number 2289 in LNCS.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Vaandrager, F. and van Schuppen, J., Eds. 1999. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control---HSCC'99. Number 1569 in LNCS. Springer, New York.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation-based abstraction refinement

          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

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
            ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 6, Issue 1
            February 2007
            210 pages
            ISSN:1539-9087
            EISSN:1558-3465
            DOI:10.1145/1210268
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2007 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 February 2007
            Published in tecs Volume 6, Issue 1

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader