Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 371–405 | Cite as

Automated generation of dynamics-based runtime certificates for high-level control

  • Jonathan DeCastro
  • Rüdiger Ehlers
  • Matthias Rungger
  • Ayça Balkan
  • Hadas Kress-Gazit
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of synthesizing controllers for reactive missions carried out by dynamical systems operating in environments of known physical geometry but consisting of uncontrolled elements that the system must react to at execution time. Such problems have value in semi-structured industrial automation settings, especially those in which robots must behave collaboratively yet safely with their human counterparts. The proposed synthesis framework addresses cases where there exists no satisfying controller for the mission, given the dynamical system and the environment’s assumed behaviors. We introduce an approach that leverages information about an abstraction of the dynamical system to automatically generate a concise set of revisions to such specifications. We provide a graphical visualization tool as a design aid, allowing the revisions to be conveyed to the user interactively and added to the specification at the user’s discretion. Any accepted statements become certificates that, if satisfied at runtime, provide guarantees for the current mission on the given dynamics. Our approach is cast into a general framework that works with various discrete representations (i.e. abstractions) of the system dynamics. We present case studies that illustrate application of our approach to controller synthesis for two example robotic missions employing different abstractions of the system.

Keywords

Formal methods Discrete abstractions Counterstrategies Reactive mission planning Dynamical systems 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Paulo Tabuada for insightful discussions and assistance with PESSOA, Vasumathi Raman and Salar Moarref for insightful discussions relating to synthesis of counterstrategy-based environment revisions, and Divyansha Sehgal for her assistance with the visualization tool. The authors lastly thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive critique.

References

  1. Alur R, Moarref S, Topcu U (2013) Counter-strategy guided refinement of gr(1) temporal logic specifications. In: Formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD 2013), pp 26–33Google Scholar
  2. Bhatia A, Kavraki L, Vardi M (2010) Sampling-based motion planning with temporal goals. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2010). IEEE, pp 2689–2696Google Scholar
  3. Bloem R, Cimatti A, Greimel K, Hofferek G, Könighofer R, Roveri M, Schuppan V, Seeber R (2010) RATSY – a new requirements analysis tool with synthesis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 425–429 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_37 Google Scholar
  4. Bloem R, Jobstmann B, Piterman N, Pnueli A, Sa’ar Y (2012) Synthesis of reactive (1) designs. J Comput Syst Sci 78(3):911–938MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. DeCastro JA, Ehlers R, Rungger M, Balkan A, Tabuada P, Kress-Gazit H (2014) Dynamics-based reactive synthesis and automated revisions for high-level robot control. CoRR arXiv:1410.6375
  6. DeCastro JA, Kress-Gazit H (2015) Synthesis of nonlinear continuous controllers for verifiably-correct high-level, reactive behaviors. Int J Robot Res 34(3):378–394. doi: 10.1177/0278364914557736. http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/34/3/378
  7. DeCastro JA, Kress-Gazit H (2016) Nonlinear controller synthesis and automatic workspace partitioning for reactive high-level behaviors. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on hybrid systems: computation and control (HSCC). ViennaGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehlers R, Raman V (2016) Slugs: extensible GR(1) synthesis. In: Computer aided verification - 28th international conference, CAV 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23, 2016, Proceedings, Part II, pp 333–339. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_18
  9. Fainekos GE (2011) Revising temporal logic specifications for motion planning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on robotics and automationGoogle Scholar
  10. Fainekos GE, Girard A, Kress-Gazit H, Pappas GJ (2009) Temporal logic motion planning for dynamic robots. Automatica 45(2):343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2008.08.008
  11. Girard A, Pola G, Tabuada P (2010) Approximately bisimilar symbolic models for incrementally stable switched systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 55(1):116–126MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Kloetzer M, Belta C (2008) Dealing with nondeterminism in symbolic control. In: Egerstedt M, Mishra B (eds) Hybrid systems: computation and control, 11th international workshop (HSCC 2008), lecture notes in computer science, vol 4981. Springer, pp 287–300Google Scholar
  13. Könighofer R, Hofferek G, Bloem R (2009) Debugging formal specifications using simple counterstrategies. In: Proceedings of 9th International conference on formal methods in computer-aided design, FMCAD 2009, pp 152–159Google Scholar
  14. Kress-Gazit H, Fainekos GE, Pappas GJ (2009) Temporal logic based reactive mission and motion planning. IEEE Trans Robot 25(6):1370–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li W, Dworkin L, Seshia SA (2011) Mining assumptions for synthesis. In: 9th IEEE/ACM International conference on formal methods and models for Codesign, MEMOCODE 2011, pp 43–50Google Scholar
  16. Li W, Sadigh D, Sastry SS, Seshia SA (2014) Synthesis for human-in-the-loop control systems. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems - 20th international conference, TACAS 2014, pp 470–484Google Scholar
  17. Liu J, Ozay N (2014) Abstraction, discretization, and robustness in temporal logic control of dynamical systems. In: Proc. of the 17th int. conf. on hybrid systems: computation and control (HSCC’14), pp 293–302. doi: 10.1145/2562059.2562137
  18. Liu J, Ozay N, Topcu U, Murray RM (2013) Synthesis of reactive switching protocols from temporal logic specifications. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 58 (7):1771–1785MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maly M, Lahijanian M, Kavraki L E, Kress-Gazit H, Vardi M Y (2013) Iterative temporal motion planning for hybrid systems in partially unknown environments. In: ACM International conference on hybrid systems: computation and control (HSCC). ACM, Philadelphia, pp 353–362Google Scholar
  20. Nilsson P, Ozay N (2014) Incremental synthesis of switching protocols via abstraction refinement. In: 53rd IEEE conference on decision and control, CDC 2014, Los Angeles, CA, USA, December 15-17, 2014. IEEE, pp 6246–6253. doi: 10.1109/CDC.2014.7040368
  21. Pola G, Girard A, Tabuada P (2008) Approximately bisimilar symbolic models for nonlinear control systems. Automatica 44(10):2508–2516MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Raman V, Kress-Gazit H (2013) Towards minimal explanations of unsynthesizability for high-level robot behaviors. In: Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ int. conf. on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2013)Google Scholar
  23. Raman V, Piterman N, Kress-Gazit H (2013) Provably correct continuous control for high-level robot behaviors with actions of arbitrary execution durations. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation. Karlsruhe, pp 4075–4081Google Scholar
  24. Reißig G (2011) Computing abstractions of nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 56(11):2583–2598MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tabuada P, Pappas GJ (2006) Linear time logic control of discrete-time linear systems. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 51(12):1862–1877MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tarjan R (1972) Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J Comput 1(2):146–160. doi: 10.1137/0201010
  27. Tumova J, Yordanov B, Belta C, Cerna I, Barnat J (2010) A symbolic approach to controlling piecewise affine systems. In: 49th IEEE Conference on decision and control (CDC), pp 4230–4235. doi: 10.1109/CDC.2010.5717316. pdf/cdc10b.pdf
  28. Vardi MY (1996) An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In: Logics for concurrency. Springer, pp 238–266Google Scholar
  29. Wolff E M, Topcu U, Murray RM (2013) Automaton-guided controller synthesis for nonlinear systems with temporal logic. In: Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ int. conf. on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2013)Google Scholar
  30. Wongpiromsarn T, Topcu U, Murray RM (2010) Receding horizon control for temporal logic specifications. In: Proc. of the 13th Int. conf. on hybrid systems: computation and control (HSCC’10)Google Scholar
  31. Yordanov B, Tumova J, Cerna I, Barnat J, Belta C (2012) Temporal logic control of discrete-time piecewise affine systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 57 (6):1491–1504MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Zamani M, Pola G, Mazo M, Tabuada P (2012) Symbolic models for nonlinear control systems without stability assumptions. IEEE Trans Autom Control 57(7):1804–1809MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan DeCastro
    • 1
  • Rüdiger Ehlers
    • 2
  • Matthias Rungger
    • 3
  • Ayça Balkan
    • 4
  • Hadas Kress-Gazit
    • 1
  1. 1.Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Information TechnologyTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Electrical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations