arXiv reader

A Data-Driven Hybrid Automaton Framework to Modeling Complex Dynamical Systems

Yejiang Yang, Zihao Mo and Weiming Xiang

arXiv
2304.13811v1 · PDF · 26 April 2023
Categories
eess.SY, cs.LG, cs.SY, math.DS
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this paper, a computationally efficient data-driven hybrid automaton model is proposed to capture unknown complex dynamical system behaviors using multiple neural networks. The sampled data of the system is divided by valid partitions into groups corresponding to their topologies and based on which, transition guards are defined. Then, a collection of small-scale neural networks that are computationally efficient are trained as the local dynamical description for their corresponding topologies. After modeling the system with a neural-network-based hybrid automaton, the set-valued reachability analysis with low computation cost is provided based on interval analysis and a split and combined process. At last, a numerical example of the limit cycle is presented to illustrate that the developed models can significantly reduce the computational cost in reachable set computation without sacrificing any modeling precision.

Items 16

Definition

Definition 1

1GJC

Sampled data \mathcal{W}=\{w_1,w_2,\cdots,w_L\} of an unknown dynamical system (?) is a collection of sampled L traces obtained by measurement, where for each trace w_i, i = 1,\ldots,L, is a finite sequence of time steps and data (k_{0,i},d_{0,i}),(k_{1,i},d_{1,i}),\cdots,(k_{M_i,i},d_{M_i,i}) in which

    40 k_{\ell,i}\in(0,\infty) and k_{\ell+1,i}=k_{\ell,i}+1, \forall \ell = 0,1,\ldots,M_i,\ \forall i = 1,2,\ldots,L. 40 d_{\ell,i}=[x^\top_{i}(k_{\ell,i}),~u^\top_{i}(k_{\ell,i})]^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x+n_u}, \forall \ell = 0,1,\ldots,M_i, \forall i = 1,2,\ldots,L, where x_{i}(k_{\ell,i}),u_{i}(k_{\ell,i}) denote the state and input of the system at \ellth step for ith trace, respectively.

Definition

Definition 2

HZLG

Given neural network (?) with a bounded input set \mathcal{V}, the following set

\mathcal{Y} \triangleq \{\eta_{L} \mid \eta_{L} = \Phi(\eta_{0}),~ \eta_{0} \in \mathcal{V} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}\}

is called the reachable set of neural network (?).

Remark

Remark 1

B3AY

The computation complexity for reachable set computation of \mathcal{Y} heavily relies on the number of layers and neurons. To enable computationally efficient neural-network-based models in particular for reachability analysis and successive verification procedures, we have to choose neural networks with fewer layers and neurons, however, it usually leads to low training accuracy for complex nonlinear systems. Our goal in this paper is to overcome this dilemma of computation complexity versus training accuracy.

Definition

Definition 3

003G

A neural-network-based hybrid automaton is defined by a tuple \mathcal{H} \triangleq \left \langle \mathcal{Q},\mathcal{X},init,\mathcal{U},\mathcal{E},g,\mathcal{G},inv,\mathcal{F} \right \rangle in which the components are defined by:

    40 Topologies: \mathcal{Q} \triangleq \{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_N\} is a finite set of topologies.

    40 State Variables: \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x} is the set of state variables with the state defined by (q,x)\in \mathcal{Q}\times \mathcal{X}.

    40 Initial conditions: \emph{init}\subseteq \mathcal{Q}_0\times \mathcal{X}_{0} is the initial state set, in which \mathcal{Q}_0\subseteq \mathcal{Q} and \mathcal{X}_{0}\subseteq \mathcal{X}.

    40 Inputs: \mathcal{U} \triangleq \{u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_M\} is the set of inputs for each topologies.

    40 Transitions: \mathcal{E}\subset \mathcal{Q} \times \mathcal{Q} is the set of transitions where a discrete transition from ith topology to jth topology is taking place, i.e., q_i \to q_j, e_{ij}=(q_i,q_j)\in \mathcal{E}.

    40 Guard functions: g:\mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{G} is the guard function mapping each transition element e_{ij} to its guard g(e_{ij})\in \mathcal{G}.

    40 Guards: \mathcal{G}\subseteq2^{\mathcal{X}} is the guard set which satisfies \forall e_{ij}\in \mathcal{E}, g(e_{ij})\in \mathcal{G}. The guard is satisfied by the state when the hybrid automaton model takes a transition from the current topology to another given topology, i.e., (q_k,x_k)\vDash g(e_{ij}) if and only if q_k=q_i and x_k\in g(e_{ij}).

    40 Invariants: inv: \mathcal{Q}\to 2^{\mathcal{X}} is a mapping that assigns an invariant inv(q)\subseteq \mathcal{X} for each topology q\in{\mathcal{Q}}. An invariant is satisfied by all the states of a hybrid automata model for a given topology, i.e., (q,x)\vDash inv(q) if and only if x\in inv(q).

    40 Set of Dynamical Description: \mathcal{F} is the set of dynamical description which describes the dynamical process for each given topology q\in \mathcal{Q}. In this paper, neural network \Phi_q(x(k),u(k)) \in \mathcal{F} defines the dynamics for each topology q\in \mathcal{Q} in a given time step k\in[k_1,k_2].

Problem

Problem 1

513R

Given sampled data set \mathcal{W} collected from measurable input and state traces of dynamical system (?), how does one construct a hybrid automaton \mathcal{H} embedded with neural network in the form of (?) to accurately capture the system dynamical behaviors of system (?)?

Problem

Problem 2

1D41

Given neural-network-based hybrid automaton model \mathcal{H} as defined by Definition 3, how does one perform efficient verification procedures on \mathcal{H}?

Definition

Definition 4

ZP0P

Given a compact set \mathcal{X}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n_x}. A finite collection of sets \mathscr{X}\triangleq\{\mathcal{X}^{(1)},\mathcal{X}^{(2)},\ldots,\mathcal{X}^{(N)}\} is called a partition of \mathcal{X} if (1) \mathcal{X}^{(q)} \subseteq \mathcal{X}, \forall q = 1,\ldots,N; (2) \mathrm{int}(\mathcal{X}^{(q)})\cap \mathrm{int}(\mathcal{X}^{(p)})=\emptyset, \forall q \ne p; (3) \mathcal{X}\subseteq \bigcup_{q=1}^{N} \mathcal{X}^{(i)}. Each elements of \mathcal{X}^{(q)} of partition \mathscr{X} is called a cell.

Remark

Remark 2

SER5

In this paper, we use cells defined by hyper-rectangles which are given as follows: For any bounded state set \mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n_x}, we define \mathcal{X} \subseteq \bar{\mathcal{X}}, where \bar{\mathcal{X}} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x} \mid \underline{x} \le x \le \bar{x}\}, in which \underline{x} and \bar{x} are defined as the lower and upper bounds of state x in \mathcal{X} as \underline{x}=[\mathrm{inf}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_1),\ldots,\mathrm{inf}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_{n_x})]^{\top} and \bar{x}=[\mathrm{sup}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_1),\ldots,\mathrm{sup}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_{n_x})]^{\top}, respectively. Then, we are able to partition interval \mathcal{I}_i=[\mathrm{inf}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_i),~\mathrm{sup}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_i)], i \in \{1,\ldots,n_x\} into N_i segments as \mathcal{I}_{i,1}=[x_{i,0},x_{i,1}], \mathcal{I}_{i,2}=[x_{i,1},x_{i,2}], \ldots, \mathcal{I}_{i,N_i}=[x_{i,N_i-1},x_{i,N_i}], where x_{i,0}=\mathrm{inf}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_i), x_{i,N_i}=\mathrm{sup}_{x\in \mathcal{X}}(x_i) and x_{i,n} = x_{i,0} + \frac{m(x_{i,N_i}-x_{i,0})}{N_i}, m \in \{0,1,\ldots,N_i\}. The cells then can be constructed as \mathcal{X}_q = \mathcal{I}_{1,m_1} \times\cdots\times \mathcal{I}_{n_x,m_{n_x}}, q \in \{1,2,\ldots,\prod\nolimits_{s=1}^{n_x}N_s\}, \{m_1,\ldots,m_{n_x}\}\in \{1,\ldots,N_1\} \times \cdots \times \{1,\ldots,N_{n_x}\}. To remove redundant cells, we have to check if the cell has an empty intersection with \mathcal{X}. Cell \mathcal{X}^{(q)} should be removed if \mathcal{X}_q \cap \mathcal{X} = \emptyset, and the remaining cells \mathcal{X}^{(q)} constitute \mathscr{X} = \{\mathcal{X}^{(1)},\mathcal{X}^{(2)},\ldots,\mathcal{X}^{(N)}\}.

Definition

Definition 5

K1OD

Given sampled trace w_i in set \mathcal{W}_q, an input-output pair is defined as

\begin{aligned} p_{\ell,i,q} = \{d_{\ell,i},~ x_i(k_{\ell+1},i)\} \end{aligned}

where d_{\ell,i}=[x^\top_{i}(k_{\ell,i}),~u^\top_{i}(k_{\ell,i})]^\top is given in Definition 1, and d_{\ell,i} \in \mathcal{W}_q \times \mathcal{U}, x_i(k_{\ell+1},i) \in \mathcal{X}_q. The training data set out of \mathcal{W}_q includes all the input-output pairs and is given as below:

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}_q = \{p_{0,1,q},\ldots,p_{\ell,i,q},\ldots,p_{M_L,L,q}\} \end{aligned}

where \ell = 0,1,\ldots,M_i, i = 1,\ldots,L.

Remark

Remark 3

WFMY

In general, the learning processes can be viewed as an optimization procedure to find optimized weights and biases that minimize the error between the output of the trained neural network and output training data, as described in (?). Instead of using one single neural network for modeling, a collection of neural networks \Phi_q, q=1,\ldots, N are used to model local system behaviors in each cell \mathcal{X}^{(q)}, q=1,\ldots, N. We have the following advantages if we use multiple neural networks:

    40 Compared with modeling the complex global system behavior using a single large-size neural network \Phi, a number of neural networks \Phi_q, q=1,\ldots,N with much smaller sizes are able to abstract the local system behaviors with the same or even higher modeling precision. 40 Since \mathcal{W}_q, q=1,\ldots,N are independent of each other, the training processes for small-size neural networks \Phi_q, q=1,\ldots,N can be conducted in a parallel manner which would be more computationally efficient than training a large scale neural network. 40 Even though there are multiple neural networks in the model, only one small-size neural network is activated at each time step k. Therefore, the computation effort at each step is only determined by the active small-size neural network. This feature is extremely helpful for executing computationally expensive tasks based on the model such as reachability-based safety verification in which we only need to compute the reachable set of a small-size neural network at each step.

The above benefits of using multiple small-size neural networks enable efficiently verifiable neural-network-based models of dynamical system (?). A detailed evaluation will be presented in the evaluation section.

Definition

Definition 6

HOAF

Transitions between two topologies are automatically generated by the dynamical description of hybrid automaton, such that \forall p,q=1,2,\ldots,N, \ p\neq q, (p,q):x\in\mathcal{X}^{(p)}, \Phi_p(x,u)\in\mathcal{X}^{(q)}.

Definition

Definition 7

DM2S

Given a neural-network-based hybrid automaton model \mathcal{H} with initial set \mathcal{X}_0 and input set \mathcal{U}, the reachable set at a time instant k is \mathcal{X}_{k} \triangleq \{x(k) \mid x(k)~\mathrm{satisfies}~ \mathcal{H}~\mathrm{and}~x(0) \in \mathcal{X}_{0}\} and the reachable set over time interval [0,k_f] is defined by \mathcal{X}_{[0,k_f]} = \bigcup\nolimits_{s=0}^{k_f}\mathcal{X}_{s}.

Definition

Definition 8

54D1

For a reachable set \mathcal{X}_{k} of \mathcal{H} intersects with l elements of \mathscr{X}, given a subspace \mathcal{V}_{i,k} from \mathcal{X}_{k} in which \mathcal{V}_{i,k}:\mathcal{V}_{i,k}= (\mathcal{X}_{k}\cap\mathcal{X}^{(m)});~ \cup_{i=1}^l\mathcal{V}_{i,k}=\mathcal{X}_{k},~\forall i=1,\cdots,l,~ \exists m=1,\cdots,N, the process of splitting analysis of the output space \mathcal{V}_{i,k+1} is given by

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{V}_{i,k+1}\triangleq\{\eta_{i,k+1} \mid \eta_{i,k+1}=\Phi_m({\eta_{i,k}}),~ \eta_{i,k}\in\mathcal{V}_{i,k}\} \end{aligned}

where the process of obtaining \mathcal{V}_{i,k+1},~\forall i = 1,2,\cdots,N is called Split.

Used by Remark 4
Definition

Definition 9

CC3P

For \mathcal{V}_{i,k+1},~i=1,\cdots,l the output reachable set \mathcal{X}_{k+1} for a neural-network-based hybrid automaton model \mathcal{H} at time step k+1 is given by \mathcal{X}_{k+1}\triangleq \bigcup_{i=1}^{l}\mathcal{V}_{i,k} by which the Combine derives the reachable set at k+1 time instance.

Used by Remark 4
Remark

Remark 4

8P1L

Note that if the output reachable set \mathcal{X}_{k} intersects with multiple valid partitions, the process of Split & Combine may compute the output reachable sets for more times than modeling with a single neural network and the conservatism may increase because of Combine. However, according to [xiang2018output, xiang2020reachable, tran2020nnv], the computational cost for the set-valued analysis of the neural network is mainly affected by the scale of the neural network model, e.g., the layers and neurons of the neural network model. In our case, due to parallel training of shallow neural network models, the neural-network-based hybrid automaton model may have less computational cost compared with traditional methods.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2304.13811v1 by Yejiang Yang, Zihao Mo and Weiming Xiang, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2304/2304.13811.jsonl.