Decision-Theoretic Monitoring of Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Andrey Yavolovsky
  • Miloš ŽefranEmail author
  • A. Prasad Sistla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10012)


Runtime monitoring has been proposed as an alternative to formal verification for safety critical systems. This paper introduces a decision-theoretic view of runtime monitoring. We formulate the monitoring problem as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP). Furthermore, we adopt a Partially Observable Monte-Carlo Planning (POMCP) to compute an approximate optimal policy of the monitoring POMDP. We show how to construct the POMCP for the monitoring problem and demonstrate experimentally that it can be effectively applied even when some of the state-space variables are continuous, the case where many other POMDP solvers fail. Experimental results on a mobile robot system show the effectiveness of the proposed POMDP-monitor.


Belief State Reward Function Partially Observable Markov Decision Process Runtime Monitoring Product 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.


  1. 1.
    Agate, R., Seward, D.: Autonomous safety decision-making in intelligent robotic systems in the uncertain environments. In: Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, NAFIPS 2008, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auer, P., Cesa-Bianchi, N., Fischer, P.: Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem. Mach. Learn. 47(2–3), 235–256 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bai, H., Hsu, D., Lee, W.S., Ngo, V.A.: Monte Carlo value iteration for continuous-state POMDPs. In: Hsu, D., Isler, V., Latombe, J.-C., Lin, M.C. (eds.) Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics IX. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol. 68, pp. 175–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17452-0_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blom, H., Bloem, E.: Particle filtering for stochastic hybrid systems. In: 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC, vol. 3 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henzinger, T.A., Kopke, P.W., Puri, A., Varaiya, P.: What’s decidable about hybrid automata? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 57(1), 94–124 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofbaur, M.W., Williams, B.C.: Mode estimation of probabilistic hybrid systems. In: Tomlin, C.J., Greenstreet, M.R. (eds.) HSCC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2289, pp. 253–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45873-5_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Radu, V.: Application. In: Radu, V. (ed.) Stochastic Modeling of Thermal Fatigue Crack Growth. Applied Condition Monitoring, vol. 1, pp. 63–70. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanade, A., Alur, R., Ivančić, F., Ramesh, S., Sankaranarayanan, S., Shashidhar, K.C.: Generating and analyzing symbolic traces of simulink/stateflow models. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 430–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koutsoukos, X., Kurien, J., Zhao, F.: Estimation of distributed hybrid systems using particle filtering methods. In: Maler, O., Pnueli, A. (eds.) HSCC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2623, pp. 298–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/3-540-36580-X_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, R., Garg, V.: Control of stochastic discrete event systems modeled by probabilistic languages. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 46(4), 593–606 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lerner, U., Moses, B., Scott, M., McIlraith, S., Koller, D.: Monitoring a complex physical system using a hybrid dynamic bayes net. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in AI (UAI), pp. 301–310 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pantelic, V., Postma, S., Lawford, M.: Probabilistic supervisory control of probabilistic discrete event systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54(8), 2013–2018 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Tsitsiklis, J.N.: The complexity of Markov decision processes. Math. Oper. Res. 12(3), 441–450 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tabuada, P.: Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems: A Symbolic Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Wheeler, R., Ng, A.Y.: ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System. In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software 3 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P., Intelligence, A.: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seward, D., Pace, C., Agate, R.: Safe and effective navigation of autonomous robots in hazardous environments. Auton. Robot. 22(3), 223–242 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silver, D., Veness, J.: Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2164–2172 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sistla, A.P., Žefran, M., Feng, Y.: Runtime monitoring of stochastic cyber-physical systems with hybrid state. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 276–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sistla, A.P., Žefran, M., Feng, Y.: Monitorability of stochastic dynamical systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 720–736. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sistla, A.P., Žefran, M., Feng, Y., Ben, Y.: Timely monitoring of partially observable stochastic systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pp. 61–70. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stoller, S.D., Bartocci, E., Seyster, J., Grosu, R., Havelund, K., Smolka, S.A., Zadok, E.: Runtime verification with state estimation. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verma, V., Gordon, G., Simmons, R., Thrun, S.: Real-time fault diagnosis. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 11(2), 56–66 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoo, T., Lafortune, S.: Polynomial-time verification of diagnosability of partially observed discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 47(9), 1491–1495 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrey Yavolovsky
    • 1
  • Miloš Žefran
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Prasad Sistla
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations