Advertisement

A Formal Approach to Autonomous Vehicle Coordination

  • Mikael Asplund
  • Atif Manzoor
  • Mélanie Bouroche
  • Siobhàn Clarke
  • Vinny Cahill
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7436)

Abstract

Increasing demands on safety and energy efficiency will require higher levels of automation in transportation systems. This involves dealing with safety-critical distributed coordination. In this paper we demonstrate how a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver can be used to prove correctness of a vehicular coordination problem. We formalise a recent distributed coordination protocol and validate our approach using an intersection collision avoidance (ICA) case study. The system model captures continuous time and space, and an unbounded number of vehicles and messages. The safety of the case study is automatically verified using the Z3 theorem prover.

Keywords

Collision Avoidance Formal Approach Reachable State Target Speed Hybrid Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Althoff, M., Althoff, D., Wollherr, D., Buss, M.: Safety verification of autonomous vehicles for coordinated evasive maneuvers. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, IV (2010), doi:10.1109/IVS.2010.5548121Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R.: Formal verification of hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT. ACM (2011), doi:10.1145/2038642.2038685Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB) (2010), http://www.SMT-LIB.org
  4. 4.
    Bhandal, C., Bouroche, M., Hughes, A.: A process algebraic description of a temporal wireless network protocol. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Interactive Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouroche, M.: Real-Time Coordination of Mobile Autonomous Entities. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandra, T.D., Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S., Charron-Bost, B.: On the impossibility of group membership. In: Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). ACM Press (1996), doi:10.1145/248052.248120Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damm, W., Hungar, H., Olderog, E.-R.: Verification of cooperating traffic agents. International Journal of Control 79(5) (2006), doi:10.1080/00207170600587531Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Satisfiability modulo theories: introduction and applications. Commun. ACM 54 (2011), doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1995376.1995394
  9. 9.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dresner, K., Stone, P.: A multiagent approach to autonomous intersection management. J. Artif. Int. Res. 31(1), 591–656 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commission. Eu energy and transport in figures (2010), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/statistics_en.htm (accessed January 2012)
  12. 12.
    Henzinger, T.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: Proceedings. Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logics in Computer Science, LICS 1966 (1996), doi:10.1109/LICS.1996.561342Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herde, C., Eggers, A., Franzle, M., Teige, T.: Analysis of hybrid systems using hysat. In: Third International Conference on Systems, ICONS (2008), doi:10.1109/ICONS.2008.17Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, J., Blech, J., Raabe, A., Buckl, C., Knoll, A.: Static scheduling of a time-triggered network-on-chip based on SMT solving. In: Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 509–514 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livadas, C., Lygeros, J., Lynch, N.: High-level modeling and analysis of the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (tcas). Proceedings of the IEEE 88(7) (2000), doi:10.1109/5.871302Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loos, S., Platzer, A., Nistor, L.: Adaptive Cruise Control: Hybrid, Distributed, and Now Formally Verified. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 42–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loos, S.M., Platzer, A.: Safe intersections: At the crossing of hybrid systems and verification. In: 14th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC (2011), doi:10.1109/ITSC.2011.6083138Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naumann, R., Rasche, R., Tacken, J., Tahedi, C.: Validation and simulation of a decentralized intersection collision avoidance algorithm. In: IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation System, ITSC (1997), doi:10.1109/ITSC.1997.660579Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Platzer, A.: Differential dynamic logic for hybrid systems. J. Autom. Reas. 41(2) (2008), doi:10.1007/s10817-008-9103-8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Platzer, A., Clarke, E.M.: Formal Verification of Curved Flight Collision Avoidance Maneuvers: A Case Study. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D.R. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 547–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Johnson, S.D. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sin, M.L., Bouroche, M., Cahill, V.: Scheduling of dynamic participants in real-time distributed systems. In: 30th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, SRDS (2011), doi:10.1109/SRDS.2011.37Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slot, M., Cahill, V.: A reliable membership service for vehicular safety applications. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, IV (2011), doi:10.1109/IVS.2011.5940487Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steiner, W., Dutertre, B.: SMT-Based Formal Verification of a TTEthernet Synchronization Function. In: Kowalewski, S., Roveri, M. (eds.) FMICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6371, pp. 148–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The World Bank. Road safety (2011), http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/safety.htm (accessed December 2011)
  26. 26.
    Tomlin, C., Pappas, G., Sastry, S.: Conflict resolution for air traffic management: a study in multiagent hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 43(4) (1998), doi:10.1109/9.664154Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Traffic Accident Causation in Europe (TRACE) FP6-2004-IST-4. Deliverable 1.3 road users and accident causation (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verma, R., Vecchio, D.: Semiautonomous multivehicle safety. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 18(3) (2011), doi:10.1109/MRA.2011.942114Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zimmermann, A., Hommel, G.: A train control system case study in model-based real time system design. In: Proceedings. International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2003 (2003), doi:10.1109/IPDPS.2003.1213234Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Asplund
    • 1
  • Atif Manzoor
    • 1
  • Mélanie Bouroche
    • 1
  • Siobhàn Clarke
    • 1
  • Vinny Cahill
    • 1
  1. 1.Lero - The Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, Distributed Systems Group, School of Computer Science and StatisticsTrinity College DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations