Meeting a Powertrain Verification Challenge

  • Parasara Sridhar Duggirala
  • Chuchu Fan
  • Sayan Mitra
  • Mahesh Viswanathan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9206)

Abstract

We present the verification of a benchmark powertrain control system using the hybrid system verification tool C2E2. This model comes from a suite of benchmarks that were posed as a challenge problem for the hybrid systems community, and to our knowledge, we are reporting its first verification. For this work, we implemented the algorithm reported in [10] in C2E2, to automatically compute local discrepancy (rate of convergence or divergence of trajectories) of the model. We verify the key requirements of the model, specified in signal temporal logic (STL), for a set of driver behaviors.

Keywords

Discrepancy Function Reachable State Driver Behavior Switching Signal 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.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Jim Kapinski, Jyo Desmukh, and Xiaoqing Jin of Toyota for several useful discussions on the powertrain models. This research is funded by research grants from the National Science Foundation (grant: CAR 1054247 and NSF CSR 1016791) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR YIP FA9550-12-1-0336).

References

  1. 1.
    Angeli, D.: A lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 47(3), 410–421 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annpureddy, Y., Liu, C., Fainekos, G., Sankaranarayanan, S.: S-TaLiRo: a tool for temporal logic falsification for hybrid systems. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 254–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, X., Ábrahám, E., Sankaranarayanan, S.: Flow*: an analyzer for non-linear hybrid systems. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 258–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donzé, A.: Breach, a toolbox for verification and parameter synthesis of hybrid systems. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 167–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dreossi, T., Dang, T., Donzé, A., Kapinski, J., Jin, X., Deshmukh, J.V.: Efficient guiding strategies for testing of temporal properties of hybrid systems. In: Havelund, K., Holzmann, G., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9058, pp. 127–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duggirala, P.S., Mitra, S., Viswanathan, M.: Verification of annotated models from executions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT 2013, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duggirala, P.S., Mitra, S., Viswanathan, M., Potok, M.: C2E2: a verification tool for stateflow models. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 68–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duggirala, P.S., Wang, L., Mitra, S., Viswanathan, M., Muñoz, C.: Temporal precedence checking for switched models and its application to a parallel landing protocol. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8442, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eigen, a C++ template library for linear algebra. http://eigen.tuxfamily.org Accessed Feb 2015
  10. 10.
    Fan, C., Mitra, S.: Bounded verification using on-the-fly discrepancy computation. Technical report UILU-ENG-15-2201, Coordinated Science Laboratory. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin, X., Deshmukh, J.V., Kapinski, J., Ueda, K., Butts, K.: Benchmarks for model transformations and conformance checking. In: 1st International Workshop on Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH) (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin, X., Deshmukh, J.V., Kapinski, J., Ueda, K., Butts, K.: Powertrain control verification benchmark. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Hybrid systems: computation and control, pp. 253–262. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, X., Donzé, A., Deshmukh, J.V., Seshia, S.A.: Mining requirements from closed-loop control models. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Hybrid systems: computation and control, pp. 43–52. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jin, X., Donzé, A., Deshmukh, J.V., Seshia, S.A.: Mining requirements from closed-loop control models. In: EEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lohmiller, W., Slotine, J.J.E.: On contraction analysis for non-linear systems. Automatica 36(4), 683–696 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Parasara Sridhar Duggirala
    • 1
  • Chuchu Fan
    • 1
  • Sayan Mitra
    • 1
  • Mahesh Viswanathan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IllinoisUrbana-champaignUSA

Personalised recommendations