At scale, formal verification of hybrid systems is challenging, but a potential remedy is the observation that systems often come with a number of natural components with certain local responsibilities. Ideally, such a compartmentalization into more manageable components also translates to hybrid systems verification, so that safety properties about the whole system can be derived from local verification results. We propose a benchmark consisting of a sequence of three case studies, where components interact to achieve system safety. The baseline for the benchmark is the verification effort from a monolithic fashion (i.e., the entire system without splitting it into components). We describe how to split the system models used in these case studies into components with local responsibilities, and what is expected about their interaction to guarantee system safety. The benchmark can be used to assess the performance, automation, and verification features of component-based verification approaches. ∗Work partly funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) P28187-N31. This research was sponsored by the AFOSR under grant number FA9550-16-1-0288. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of any sponsoring institution, the U.S. government or any other entity. G. Frehse and M. Althoff (eds.), ARCH17 (EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 48), pp. 65–74 Component-based CPS Verification Müller, Mitsch, Retschitzegger, Schwinger, Platzer System ( Component A ∥ Component B ) System Proof System Contract ( Contract A ∧ Contract B ) Component A Proof A Contract A Component B Contract B
[1]
G. Frehse,et al.
Assume-guarantee reasoning for hybrid I/O-automata by over-approximation of continuous interaction
,
2004,
2004 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37601).
[2]
André Platzer,et al.
A Complete Uniform Substitution Calculus for Differential Dynamic Logic
,
2016,
Journal of Automated Reasoning.
[3]
Nathan Fulton,et al.
KeYmaera X: An Axiomatic Tactical Theorem Prover for Hybrid Systems
,
2015,
CADE.
[4]
André Platzer,et al.
Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified
,
2011,
FM.
[5]
André Platzer,et al.
European Train Control System: A Case Study in Formal Verification
,
2009,
ICFEM.
[6]
André Platzer,et al.
On Provably Safe Obstacle Avoidance for Autonomous Robotic Ground Vehicles
,
2013,
Robotics: Science and Systems.
[7]
Werner Retschitzegger,et al.
A Component-Based Approach to Hybrid Systems Safety Verification
,
2016,
IFM.
[8]
André Platzer,et al.
The Complete Proof Theory of Hybrid Systems
,
2012,
2012 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.
[9]
Werner Retschitzegger,et al.
Change and Delay Contracts for Hybrid System Component Verification
,
2017,
FASE.