Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified

  • Sarah M. Loos
  • André Platzer
  • Ligia Nistor
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6664)

Abstract

Car safety measures can be most effective when the cars on a street coordinate their control actions using distributed cooperative control. While each car optimizes its navigation planning locally to ensure the driver reaches his destination, all cars coordinate their actions in a distributed way in order to minimize the risk of safety hazards and collisions. These systems control the physical aspects of car movement using cyber technologies like local and remote sensor data and distributed V2V and V2I communication. They are thus cyber-physical systems. In this paper, we consider a distributed car control system that is inspired by the ambitions of the California PATH project, the CICAS system, SAFESPOT and PReVENT initiatives. We develop a formal model of a distributed car control system in which every car is controlled by adaptive cruise control. One of the major technical difficulties is that faithful models of distributed car control have both distributed systems and hybrid systems dynamics. They form distributed hybrid systems, which makes them very challenging for verification. In a formal proof system, we verify that the control model satisfies its main safety objective and guarantees collision freedom for arbitrarily many cars driving on a street, even if new cars enter the lane from on-ramps or multi-lane streets. The system we present is in many ways one of the most complicated cyber-physical systems that has ever been fully verified formally.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chang, J., Cohen, D., Blincoe, L., Subramanian, R., Lombardo, L.: CICAS-V research on comprehensive costs of intersection crashes. Technical Report 07-0016, NHTSA (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damm, W., Hungar, H., Olderog, E.R.: Verification of cooperating traffic agents. International Journal of Control 79, 395–421 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dao, T.S., Clark, C.M., Huissoon, J.P.: Distributed platoon assignment and lane selection for traffic flow optimization. In: IEEE IV 2008, pp. 739–744 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dao, T.S., Clark, C.M., Huissoon, J.P.: Optimized lane assignment using inter-vehicle communication. In: IEEE IV 2007, pp. 1217–1222 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall, R., Chin, C., Gadgil, N.: The automated highway system / street interface: Final report. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2003-06, UC Berkeley (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, R., Chin, C.: Vehicle sorting for platoon formation: Impacts on highway entry and troughput. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2002-07, UC Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu, A., Eskafi, F., Sachs, S., Varaiya, P.: Design of platoon maneuver protocols for IVHS. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-91-6, UC Berkeley (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ioannou, P.A.: Automated Highway Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jula, H., Kosmatopoulos, E.B., Ioannou, P.A.: Collision avoidance analysis for lane changing and merging. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-99-13, UC Berkeley (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horowitz, R., Tan, C.W., Sun, X.: An efficient lane change maneuver for platoons of vehicles in an automated highway system. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2004-16, UC Berkeley (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shladover, S.E.: Effects of traffic density on communication requirements for Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS). PATH Working Paper UCB-ITS-PWP-2005-1, UC Berkeley (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stursberg, O., Fehnker, A., Han, Z., Krogh, B.H.: Verification of a cruise control system using counterexample-guided search. Control Engineering Practice 38, 1269–1278 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varaiya, P.: Smart cars on smart roads: problems of control. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 38, 195–207 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wongpiromsarn, T., Mitra, S., Murray, R.M., Lamperski, A.: Periodically controlled hybrid systems: Verifying a controller for an autonomous vehicle. In: Majumdar, R., Tabuada, P. (eds.) HSCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5469, pp. 396–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chee, W., Tomizuka, M.: Vehicle lane change maneuver in automated highway systems. PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-94-22, UC Berkeley (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johansson, R., Rantzer, A. (eds.): Nonlinear and Hybrid Systems in Automotive Control. Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Althoff, M., Althoff, D., Wollherr, D., Buss, M.: Safety verification of autonomous vehicles for coordinated evasive maneuvers. In: IEEE IV 2010, pp. 1078–1083 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berardi, L., Santis, E., Benedetto, M., Pola, G.: Approximations of maximal controlled safe sets for hybrid systems. In: Johansson, R., Rantzer, A. (eds.) Nonlinear and Hybrid Systems in Automotive Control, pp. 335–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Platzer, A.: Quantified Differential Dynamic Logic for Distributed Hybrid Systems. In: Dawar, A., Veith, H. (eds.) CSL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6247, pp. 469–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lygeros, J., Lynch, N.: Strings of vehicles: Modeling safety conditions. In: Henzinger, T.A., Sastry, S.S. (eds.) HSCC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1386, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dolginova, E., Lynch, N.: Safety verification for automated platoon maneuvers: A case study. In: Maler, O. (ed.) HART, pp. 154–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Electronic Proof and Demo, http://www.ls.cs.cmu.edu/dccs/
  23. 23.
    Loos, S.M., Platzer, A., Nistor, L.: Adaptive cruise control: Hybrid, distributed, and now formally verified. Technical Report CMU-CS-11-107, Carnegie Mellon University (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Germann, S.: Modellbildung und Modellgestützte Regelung der Fahrzeuglängsdynamik. Fortschrittsberichte VDI, Reihe 12, Nr. 309, VDI Verlag (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah M. Loos
    • 1
  • André Platzer
    • 1
  • Ligia Nistor
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations