Periodically-Scheduled Controller Analysis Using Hybrid Systems Reachability and Continuization

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) consist of physical entities that obey dynamical laws and interact with software components. A typical CPS implementation includes a discrete controller, where software periodically samples physical state and produces actuation commands according to a real-time schedule. Such a hybrid system can be modeled formally as a hybrid automaton. However, reachability tools to verify specifications for hybrid automata do not perform well on such periodically-scheduled models. This is due to a combination of the large number of discrete jumps and the nondeterminism of the exact controller start time. In this paper, we demonstrate this problem and propose a solution, which is a validated abstraction mechanism where every behavior of the original sampled system is contained in the behaviors of a purely continuous system with an additive nondeterministic input. Reachability tools for hybrid automata can better handle such systems. We further improve the analysis by considering local analysis domains. We automate the proposed technique in the Hyst model transformation tool, and demonstrate its effectiveness in a case study analyzing the design of a yaw-damper for a jet aircraft.

[1]  Sergiy Bogomolov,et al.  HYST: a source transformation and translation tool for hybrid automaton models , 2015, HSCC.

[2]  Chi-Tsong Chen,et al.  Linear System Theory and Design , 1995 .

[3]  Insup Lee,et al.  Generating Reliable Code from Hybrid-Systems Models , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[4]  Johan Löfberg,et al.  YALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB , 2004 .

[5]  Richard M. Murray,et al.  Verification of Periodically Controlled Hybrid Systems: Application to an Autonomous Vehicle , 2012, TECS.

[6]  Frank L. Lewis,et al.  Optimal Control: Lewis/Optimal Control 3e , 2012 .

[7]  Mahesh Viswanathan,et al.  Progress on Powertrain Verification Challenge with C2E2 , 2015, ARCH@CPSWeek.

[8]  Matthias Althoff,et al.  Avoiding geometric intersection operations in reachability analysis of hybrid systems , 2012, HSCC '12.

[9]  Xin Chen,et al.  Taylor Model Flowpipe Construction for Non-linear Hybrid Systems , 2012, 2012 IEEE 33rd Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[10]  Sergiy Bogomolov,et al.  Assume-Guarantee Abstraction Refinement Meets Hybrid Systems , 2014, Haifa Verification Conference.

[11]  Frank L. Lewis,et al.  Optimal Control , 1986 .

[12]  Kenneth R. Butts,et al.  Powertrain control verification benchmark , 2014, HSCC.

[13]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  The Algorithmic Analysis of Hybrid Systems , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Antoine Girard,et al.  SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems , 2011, CAV.

[15]  Xin Chen,et al.  Flow*: An Analyzer for Non-linear Hybrid Systems , 2013, CAV.

[16]  K.-E. Arzen,et al.  How does control timing affect performance? Analysis and simulation of timing using Jitterbug and TrueTime , 2003, IEEE Control Systems.

[17]  Cédric Langbort,et al.  Stability of digitally interconnected linear systems , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.

[18]  Ethan K. Jackson,et al.  A bounded model checking tool for periodic sample-hold systems , 2014, HSCC.

[19]  Pravin Varaiya,et al.  What's decidable about hybrid automata? , 1995, STOC '95.

[20]  Chung Laung Liu,et al.  Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment , 1989, JACM.

[21]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  From control models to real-time code using Giotto , 2003 .

[22]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Hybrid I/O automata , 1995, Inf. Comput..

[23]  Matthias Althoff,et al.  Formal verification of phase-locked loops using reachability analysis and continuization , 2011, 2011 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD).

[24]  Daniel Liberzon,et al.  Quantized feedback stabilization of linear systems , 2000, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..