2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89963-3_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient Dynamic Error Reduction for Hybrid Systems Reachability Analysis

Abstract: To decide whether a set of states is reachable in a hybrid system, over-approximative symbolic successor computations can be used, where the symbolic representation of state sets as well as the successor computations have several parameters which determine the efficiency and the precision of the computations. Naturally, faster computations come with less precision and more spurious counterexamples. To remove a spurious counterexample, the only possibility offered by current tools is to reduce the error by rest… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(23 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar approach adaptively tunes all algorithm parameters without backtracking while respecting an error bound related to the Hausdorff distance between the exact reachable set and the computed enclosure [54]. While the desired error bound still has to be manually specified for the aforementioned approaches, automated verification algorithms automatically refine this error bound until the specification can be either proven or disproven: Brute-force approaches [9,50] simply re-compute the reachable set with improved algorithm parameter values. The framework of counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) automatically refines the model [26,53] or the set representation [12,13].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar approach adaptively tunes all algorithm parameters without backtracking while respecting an error bound related to the Hausdorff distance between the exact reachable set and the computed enclosure [54]. While the desired error bound still has to be manually specified for the aforementioned approaches, automated verification algorithms automatically refine this error bound until the specification can be either proven or disproven: Brute-force approaches [9,50] simply re-compute the reachable set with improved algorithm parameter values. The framework of counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) automatically refines the model [26,53] or the set representation [12,13].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [27] the authors propose an efficient Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) based approach to dynamically reduce overapproximation error. The idea, albeit similar to ours, is to automatically select suitable parameters of the reachability algorithm, so that verification can be performed more efficiently and accurately.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then these representations change over the course of the algorithm into further overapproximations during steps 2 and 3, and as a result amplify the error. Furthermore the error scales with the dimensionality of the system and certain representations become less tight when variables with simple dynamics are mixed into the state-space, such as clocks and Piece-Wise Constant (PWC) variables [23,24]. Finally, when simple guard and invariant constraints are defined for e.g.…”
Section: Common Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%