skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Compositional Relational Abstraction for Nonlinear Hybrid Systems

Published:27 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We propose techniques to construct abstractions for nonlinear dynamics in terms of relations expressed in linear arithmetic. Such relations are useful for translating the closed loop verification problem of control software with continuous-time, nonlinear plant models into discrete and linear models that can be handled by efficient software verification approaches for discrete-time systems. We construct relations using Taylor model based flowpipe construction and the systematic composition of relational abstractions for smaller components. We focus on developing efficient schemes for the special case of composing abstractions for linear and nonlinear components. We implement our ideas using a relational abstraction system, using the resulting abstraction inside the verification tool NuXMV, which implements numerous SAT/SMT solver-based verification techniques for discrete systems. Finally, we evaluate the application of relational abstractions for verifying properties of time triggered controllers, comparing with the Flow* tool. We conclude that relational abstractions are a promising approach towards nonlinear hybrid system verification, capable of proving properties that are beyond the reach of tools such as Flow*. At the same time, we highlight the need for improvements to existing linear arithmetic SAT/SMT solvers to better support reasoning with large relational abstractions.

References

  1. H. Abbas, G. Fainekos, S. Sankaranarayanan, F. Ivancic, and A. Gupta. 2013. Probabilistic Temporal Logic Falsification of Cyber-Physical Systems. Trans. on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS) 12, 2s (2013), 95:1-- 95:30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Althoff. 2015. An Introduction to CORA 2015. In Proc. of ARCH’15 (EPiC Series in Computer Science), Vol. 34. EasyChair, 120--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Alur, T. Dang, and F. Ivancic. 2003. Counter-Example Guided Predicate Abstraction of Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of TACAS’03 (LNCS), Vol. 2619. Springer, 208--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Alur, T. Dang, and F. Ivancic. 2003. Progress on Reachability Analysis of Hybrid Systems Using Predicate Abstraction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC’03) (LNCS), Vol. 2623. Springer, 4--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Berz. 1999. Modern Map Methods in Particle Beam Physics. Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Vol. 108. Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Berz and K. Makino. 1998. Verified Integration of ODEs and Flows Using Differential Algebraic Methods on High-Order Taylor Models. Reliable Computing 4 (1998), 361--369. Issue 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. R. Bradley. 2011. SAT-based Model Checking Without Unrolling. In Proc. VMCAI’11 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 6538. Springer-Verlag, 70--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. F. Cameron, G. Fainekos, D. M. Maahs, and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2015. Towards a Verified Artificial Pancreas: Challenges and Solutions for Runtime Verification. In Proc. of RV’15 (LNCS), Vol. 9333. 3--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. Cavada, A. Cimatti, M. Dorigatti, A. Griggio, A. Mariotti, A. Micheli, S. Mover, M. Roveri, and S. Tonetta. 2014. The nuXmv Symbolic Model Checker. In CAV (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 8559. 334--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. X. Chen. 2015. Reachability Analysis of Non-Linear Hybrid Systems Using Taylor Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. RWTH Aachen University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. X. Chen, E. Ábrahám, and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2012. Taylor Model Flowpipe Construction for Non-linear Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of RTSS’12. IEEE Computer Society, 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. X. Chen, E. Ábrahám, and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2013. Flow*: An Analyzer for Non-linear Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of CAV’13 (LNCS), Vol. 8044. Springer, 258--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. X. Chen, S. Dutta, and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2017. Formal Verification of a Multi-Basal Insulin Infusion Control Model. (2017). Cf. http://www.cs.colorado.edu//srirams/projects/ap-verification-project-page.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. X. Chen and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2016. Decomposed Reachability Analysis for Nonlinear Systems. In Proc. of the 37th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS’16). IEEE Computer Society, 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, S. Mover, and S. Tonetta. 2015. HyComp: An SMT-Based Model Checker for Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of TACAS’15 (LNCS), Vol. 9035. Springer, 52--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, S. Mover, and S. Tonetta. 2016. Infinite-state Invariant Checking with IC3 and Predicate Abstraction. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 49, 3 (Dec 2016), 190--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Dalla Man, R. A. Rizza, and C. Cobelli. 2006. Meal simulation model of the glucose-insulin system. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 1, 10 (2006), 1740--1749.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. T. Dang, C. Le Guernic, and O. Maler. 2009. Computing Reachable States for Nonlinear Biological Models. In Proc. of CMSB’09 (LNCS), Vol. 5688. Springer, 126--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. M. de Moura and N. Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In Proc. of TACAS’08 (LNCS), Vol. 4963. Springer, 337--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Donzé. 2010. Breach: A Toolbox for Verification and Parameter Synthesis of Hybrid Systems. In CAV (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 6174. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Iulia Dragomir, Viorel Preoteasa, and Stavros Tripakis. 2016. Compositional Semantics and Analysis of Hierarchical Block Diagrams. In SPIN’16 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 9641. Springer, 38--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. B. Dutertre and L. de Moura. 2006. The YICES SMT Solver. (2006). Cf. http://yices.csl.sri.com/tool-paper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Eggers, N. Ramdani, N. Nedialkov, and M. Fränzle. 2011. Improving SAT Modulo ODE for Hybrid Systems Analysis by Combining Different Enclosure Methods. In Proc. of SEFM’11 (LNCS), Vol. 7041. Springer, 172--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Fränzle, C. Herde, S. Ratschan, T. Schubert, and T. Teige. 2007. Efficient Solving of Large Non-linear Arithmetic Constraint Systems with Complex Boolean Structure. JSAT—Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, Special Issue on SAT/CP Integration 1 (2007), 209--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. G. Frehse, C. Le Guernic, A. Donzé, S. Cotton, R. Ray, O. Lebeltel, R. Ripado, A. Girard, T. Dang, and O. Maler. 2011. SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of CAV’11 (LNCS), Vol. 6806. Springer, 379--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Gao, S. Kong, and E. M. Clarke. 2013. dReal: An SMT Solver for Nonlinear Theories over the Reals. In Proc. CADE’13 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7898. Springer, 208--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. S. Gao, S. Kong, and E. M. Clarke. 2013. Satisfiability Modulo ODEs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD’13). IEEE, 105--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Z. Huang and S. Mitra. 2014. Proofs from simulations and modular annotations. In Proc. of HSCC’14. ACM, 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. S. Kong, S. Gao, W. Chen, and E. M. Clarke. 2015. dReach: -Reachability Analysis for Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of TACAS’15 (LNCS), Vol. 9035. Springer, 200--205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. C. Le Guernic. 2009. Reachability Analysis of Hybrid Systems with Linear Continuous Dynamics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Joseph Fourier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. K. Makino and M. Berz. 2003. Taylor models and other validated functional inclusion methods. J. Pure and Applied Mathematics 4, 4 (2003), 379--456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. C. Dalla Man, M. Camilleri, and C. Cobelli. 2006. A System Model of Oral Glucose Absorption: Validation on Gold Standard Data. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 53, 12 (2006), 2472--2478.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. I. Mitchell and C. Tomlin. 2000. Level Set Methods for Computation in Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of HSCC’00 (LNCS), Vol. 1790. Springer, 310--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. Mover, A. Cimatti, A. Tiwari, and S. Tonetta. 2013. Time-aware relational abstractions for hybrid systems. In EMSOFT’13. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Neher, K. R. Jackson, and N. S. Nedialkov. 2006. On Taylor Model Based Integration of ODEs. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 45 (2006), 236--262. Issue 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. A. Platzer. 2010. Logical Analysis of Hybrid Systems: Proving Theorems for Complex Dynamics. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. A. Platzer and E. M. Clarke. 2009. Computing differential invariants of hybrid systems as fixedpoints. Formal Methods in System Design 35, 1 (2009), 98--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. A. Podelski and S. Wagner. 2007. A Sound and Complete Proof Rule for Region Stability of Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of HSCC’07 (LNCS), Vol. 4416. Springer, 750--753. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. N. Ramdani and N. S. Nedialkov. 2011. Computing Reachable Sets for Uncertain Nonlinear Hybrid Systems using Interval Constraint-Propagation Techniques. Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems 5, 2 (2011), 149--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. M. Rungger and M. Zamani. 2015. Compositional construction of approximate abstractions. In Proc. of HSCC’15. ACM, 68--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. Sankaranarayanan and A. Tiwari. 2011. Relational Abstractions for Continuous and Hybrid Systems. In Proc. of CAV’11 (LNCS), Vol. 6806. Springer, 686--702. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. D. S̆iljak. 1978. Large-scale dynamic systems: stability and structure. North Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. R. Testylier and T. Dang. 2013. NLTOOLBOX: A Library for Reachability Computation of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. In Proc. of ATVA’13 (LNCS), Vol. 8172. Springer, 469--473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. S. Weinzimer, G. Steil, K. Swan, J. Dziura, N. Kurtz, and W. Tamborlane. 2008. Fully Automated Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Versus Semiautomated Hybrid Control in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Using an Artificial Pancreas. Diabetes Care 31 (2008), 934--939.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. A. Zutshi, S. Sankaranarayanan, J. V. Deshmukh, and J. Kapinski. 2013. A Trajectory Splicing Approach to Concretizing Counterexamples for Hybrid Systems. In IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. A. Zutshi, S. Sankaranarayanan, and A. Tiwari. 2012. Timed Relational Abstractions for Sampled Data Control Systems. In Proc. of CAV’12 (LNCS), Vol. 7358. Springer, 343--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Compositional Relational Abstraction for Nonlinear Hybrid 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

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
          ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 16, Issue 5s
          Special Issue ESWEEK 2017, CASES 2017, CODES + ISSS 2017 and EMSOFT 2017
          October 2017
          1448 pages
          ISSN:1539-9087
          EISSN:1558-3465
          DOI:10.1145/3145508
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 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: 27 September 2017
          • Accepted: 1 July 2017
          • Revised: 1 June 2017
          • Received: 1 April 2017
          Published in tecs Volume 16, Issue 5s

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader