On modularity in reactive control architectures, with an application to formal verification
August 28, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Trans. Cyber Phys. Syst.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Oliver Biggar, Mohammad Zamani, Iman Shames
arXiv ID
2008.12515
Category
cs.AI: Artificial Intelligence
Cross-listed
cs.RO
Citations
32
Venue
ACM Trans. Cyber Phys. Syst.
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Modularity is a central principle throughout the design process for cyber-physical systems. Modularity reduces complexity and increases reuse of behavior. In this paper we pose and answer the following question: how can we identify independent `modules' within the structure of reactive control architectures? To this end, we propose a graph-structured control architecture we call a decision structure, and show how it generalises some reactive control architectures which are popular in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics, specifically Teleo-Reactive programs (TRs), Decision Trees (DTs), Behavior Trees (BTs) and Generalised Behavior Trees ($k$-BTs). Inspired by the definition of a module in graph theory, we define modules in decision structures and show how each decision structure possesses a canonical decomposition into its modules. We can naturally characterise each of the BTs, $k$-BTs, DTs and TRs by properties of their module decomposition. This allows us to recognise which decision structures are equivalent to each of these architectures in quadratic time. Our proposed concept of modules extends to formal verification, under any verification scheme capable of verifying a decision structure. Namely, we prove that a modification to a module within a decision structure has no greater flow-on effects than a modification to an individual action within that structure. This enables verification on modules to be done locally and hierarchically, where structures can be verified and then repeatedly locally modified, with modules replaced by modules while preserving correctness. To illustrate the findings, we present an example of a solar-powered drone controlled by a decision structure. We use a Linear Temporal Logic-based verification scheme to verify the correctness of this structure, and then show how one can modify modules while preserving its correctness.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Artificial Intelligence
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepAR: Probabilistic Forecasting with Autoregressive Recurrent Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Rainbow: Combining Improvements in Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted