Synthesis for Human-in-the-Loop Control Systems

  • Wenchao Li
  • Dorsa Sadigh
  • S. Shankar Sastry
  • Sanjit A. Seshia
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8413)


Several control systems in safety-critical applications involve the interaction of an autonomous controller with one or more human operators. Examples include pilots interacting with an autopilot system in an aircraft, and a driver interacting with automated driver-assistance features in an automobile. The correctness of such systems depends not only on the autonomous controller, but also on the actions of the human controller. In this paper, we present a formalism for human-in-the-loop (HuIL) control systems. Particularly, we focus on the problem of synthesizing a semi-autonomous controller from high-level temporal specifications that expect occasional human intervention for correct operation. We present an algorithm for this problem, and demonstrate its operation on problems related to driver assistance in automobiles.


Human Operator Temporal Logic Model Predictive Control Linear Temporal Logic Boolean Formula 
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.


  1. 1.
    Federal Aviation Administration. The interfaces between flight crews and modern flight systems (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., et al.: Counter-strategy guided refinement of gr(1) temporal logic specifications. In: The Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pp. 26–33 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, S.J., et al.: An optimal-control-based framework for trajectory planning, threat assessment, and semi-autonomous control of passenger vehicles in hazard avoidance scenarios. International Journal of Vehicle Autonomous Systems 8(2), 190–216 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloem, R., Cimatti, A., Greimel, K., Hofferek, G., Könighofer, R., Roveri, M., Schuppan, V., Seeber, R.: RATSY – A new requirements analysis tool with synthesis. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 425–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B.: Environment assumptions for synthesis. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costa, M.-C., et al.: Minimal multicut and maximal integer multiflow: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research 162(1), 55–69 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohn, L.T., et al.: To err is human: Building a safer health system. Technical report, A report of the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Könighofer, R., et al.: Debugging formal specifications using simple counterstrategies. In: Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pp. 152–159 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kress-Gazit, H., et al.: Temporal-logic-based reactive mission and motion planning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 25(6), 1370–1381 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, W., et al.: Mining assumptions for synthesis. In: Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign, pp. 43–50 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Livingston, S.C., et al.: Backtracking temporal logic synthesis for uncertain environments. In: Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 5163–5170 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Livingston, S.C., et al.: Patching task-level robot controllers based on a local μ-calculus formula. In: Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4588–4595 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles (May 2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y.: Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 364–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosner, R.: Modular synthesis of reactive systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Weizmann Institute of Science (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sadigh, D., et al.: Data-driven probabilistic modeling and verification of human driver behavior. In: Formal Verification and Modeling in Human-Machine Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Triggs, T.J., et al.: Reaction time of drivers to road stimuli (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vasudevan, R., et al.: Safe semi-autonomous control with enhanced driver modeling. In: American Control Conference, pp. 2896–2903 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wongpiromsarn, T., et al.: Receding horizon temporal logic planning for dynamical systems. In: Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 5997–6004 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wongpiromsarn, T., et al.: Receding horizon temporal logic planning. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 57(11), 2817–2830 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenchao Li
    • 1
  • Dorsa Sadigh
    • 2
  • S. Shankar Sastry
    • 2
  • Sanjit A. Seshia
    • 2
  1. 1.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations