The Structure of Differential Invariants and Differential Cut Elimination

The biggest challenge in hybrid systems verification is the handling of differential equations. Because computable closed-form solutions only exist for very simple differential equations, proof certificates have been proposed for more scalable verification. Search procedures for these proof certificates are still rather ad-hoc, though, because the problem structure is only understood poorly. We investigate differential invariants, which define an induction principle for differential equations and which can be checked for invariance along a differential equation just by using their differential structure, without having to solve them. We study the structural properties of differential invariants. To analyze trade-offs for proof search complexity, we identify more than a dozen relations between several classes of differential invariants and compare their deductive power. As our main results, we analyze the deductive power of differential cuts and the deductive power of differential invariants with auxiliary differential variables. We refute the differential cut elimination hypothesis and show that, unlike standard cuts, differential cuts are fundamental proof principles that strictly increase the deductive power. We also prove that the deductive power increases further when adding auxiliary differential variables to the dynamics.

[1]  Ashish Tiwari,et al.  Deductive Verification of Continuous Dynamical Systems , 2009, FSTTCS.

[2]  André Platzer,et al.  European Train Control System: A Case Study in Formal Verification , 2009, ICFEM.

[3]  Daniel S. Graça,et al.  Computability with polynomial differential equations , 2008, Adv. Appl. Math..

[4]  Marie-Françoise Roy,et al.  Real algebraic geometry , 1992 .

[5]  Ian M. Mitchell,et al.  Reachability Analysis Using Polygonal Projections , 1999, HSCC.

[6]  Antoine Girard,et al.  Approximation Metrics for Discrete and Continuous Systems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[7]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Formal Verification of Curved Flight Collision Avoidance Maneuvers: A Case Study , 2009, FM.

[8]  Antoine Girard,et al.  Reachability Analysis of Nonlinear Systems Using Conservative Approximation , 2003, HSCC.

[9]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  The theory of hybrid automata , 1996, Proceedings 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[10]  V. Borkar,et al.  A unified framework for hybrid control: model and optimal control theory , 1998, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[11]  A. Nerode,et al.  Logics for hybrid systems , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[12]  André Platzer,et al.  Differential Dynamic Logic for Hybrid Systems , 2008, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[13]  Henny B. Sipma,et al.  Constructing invariants for hybrid systems , 2008, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[14]  Melvin Fitting,et al.  First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving , 1990, Graduate Texts in Computer Science.

[15]  Stefan Ratschan,et al.  Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation-based abstraction refinement , 2007, TECS.

[16]  L. Tavernini Differential automata and their discrete simulators , 1987 .

[17]  Franco Blanchini,et al.  Set invariance in control , 1999, Autom..

[18]  Sumit Gulwani,et al.  Constraint-Based Approach for Analysis of Hybrid Systems , 2008, CAV.

[19]  André Platzer,et al.  Differential-algebraic Dynamic Logic for Differential-algebraic Programs , 2010, J. Log. Comput..

[20]  Sriram Sankaranarayanan,et al.  Automatic invariant generation for hybrid systems using ideal fixed points , 2010, HSCC '10.

[21]  George E. Collins,et al.  Hauptvortrag: Quantifier elimination for real closed fields by cylindrical algebraic decomposition , 1975, Automata Theory and Formal Languages.

[22]  G. Gentzen Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I , 1935 .

[23]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Computing differential invariants of hybrid systems as fixedpoints , 2008, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[24]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  The Image Computation Problem in Hybrid Systems Model Checking , 2007, HSCC.

[25]  N. G. Parke,et al.  Ordinary Differential Equations. , 1958 .

[26]  P. Hartman Ordinary Differential Equations , 1965 .

[27]  Peter B. Andrews An introduction to mathematical logic and type theory - to truth through proof , 1986, Computer science and applied mathematics.

[28]  Pieter Collins Optimal Semicomputable Approximations to Reachable and Invariant Sets , 2006, Theory of Computing Systems.

[29]  A. Tarski A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry , 2023 .

[30]  James H. Davenport,et al.  Real Quantifier Elimination is Doubly Exponential , 1988, J. Symb. Comput..

[31]  K. Gödel Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I , 1931 .

[32]  Ali Jadbabaie,et al.  Safety Verification of Hybrid Systems Using Barrier Certificates , 2004, HSCC.

[33]  George J. Pappas,et al.  A Framework for Worst-Case and Stochastic Safety Verification Using Barrier Certificates , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[34]  K. Gödel Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I , 1931 .

[35]  Olivier Bournez,et al.  Polynomial differential equations compute all real computable functions on computable compact intervals , 2007, J. Complex..

[36]  RatschanStefan,et al.  Safety verification of hybrid systems by constraint propagation-based abstraction refinement , 2007 .

[37]  Goran Frehse,et al.  PHAVer: algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech , 2005, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[38]  Michael S. Branicky,et al.  Universal Computation and Other Capabilities of Hybrid and Continuous Dynamical Systems , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[39]  André Platzer,et al.  Logical Analysis of Hybrid Systems - Proving Theorems for Complex Dynamics , 2010 .