Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Towards Deductive Verification of Control Algorithms for Autonomous Marine Vehicles

Simon Foster, Mario Gleirscher, Radu Calinescu

TL;DR

The paper tackles safety guarantees for autonomous marine vehicles by bridging simulation-based validation with formal deductive verification. It presents a pipeline that translates an Octave-based hybrid AMV model into Isabelle/HOL via $\textsf{d}\mathcal{H}$, extending the framework to support matrices and discrete state for modular proofs. A case study on the AMV C-Worker 5 demonstrates verification of obstacle-avoidance properties, including invariants such as collinearity of $\bm{a}$ and $\bm{v}$, using a differential Hoare-style approach and automated tactics like $dInduct$. The work illustrates that Isabelle provides a flexible, library-rich environment capable of integrating numerical computations with rigorous hybrid-system proofs, offering a path toward stronger safety guarantees for autonomous marine systems.

Abstract

The use of autonomous vehicles in real-world applications is often precluded by the difficulty of providing safety guarantees for their complex controllers. The simulation-based testing of these controllers cannot deliver sufficient safety guarantees, and the use of formal verification is very challenging due to the hybrid nature of the autonomous vehicles. Our work-in-progress paper introduces a formal verification approach that addresses this challenge by integrating the numerical computation of such a system (in GNU/Octave) with its hybrid system verification by means of a proof assistant (Isabelle). To show the effectiveness of our approach, we use it to verify differential invariants of an Autonomous Marine Vehicle with a controller switching between multiple modes.

Towards Deductive Verification of Control Algorithms for Autonomous Marine Vehicles

TL;DR

The paper tackles safety guarantees for autonomous marine vehicles by bridging simulation-based validation with formal deductive verification. It presents a pipeline that translates an Octave-based hybrid AMV model into Isabelle/HOL via , extending the framework to support matrices and discrete state for modular proofs. A case study on the AMV C-Worker 5 demonstrates verification of obstacle-avoidance properties, including invariants such as collinearity of and , using a differential Hoare-style approach and automated tactics like . The work illustrates that Isabelle provides a flexible, library-rich environment capable of integrating numerical computations with rigorous hybrid-system proofs, offering a path toward stronger safety guarantees for autonomous marine systems.

Abstract

The use of autonomous vehicles in real-world applications is often precluded by the difficulty of providing safety guarantees for their complex controllers. The simulation-based testing of these controllers cannot deliver sufficient safety guarantees, and the use of formal verification is very challenging due to the hybrid nature of the autonomous vehicles. Our work-in-progress paper introduces a formal verification approach that addresses this challenge by integrating the numerical computation of such a system (in GNU/Octave) with its hybrid system verification by means of a proof assistant (Isabelle). To show the effectiveness of our approach, we use it to verify differential invariants of an Autonomous Marine Vehicle with a controller switching between multiple modes.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 6 sections, 4 theorems, 21 equations, 6 figures.

Key Result

Theorem 3.1

Differential Induction and Cut https://github.com/isabelle-utp/utp-main/blob/cfcac3847198564f09a99931a74543d8ca64ce11/theories/hyprog/utp_hyprog_dinv.thy#L303

Figures (6)

  • Figure 1: An AMV in real and a model of its physics
  • Figure 2: Block structure diagram of the dynamical model and the two-layered controller with the corresponding monitors
  • Figure 3: Behaviour of the LRE and AP as a Moore machine $*$… non-deterministic assignment by the operator
  • Figure 4: Simulation: the AMV (green dot) approaching next waypoint (blue dot) while crossing an obstacle (pink dot)
  • Figure 5: Autopilot in Isabelle/UTP
  • ...and 1 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (10)

  • Theorem 3.1
  • Definition 3.2: AMV Dynamics
  • Definition 3.3: Simplified LRE
  • Definition 3.4: Autopilot Controller
  • Definition 3.5
  • Theorem 3.6: Structural Properties
  • Theorem 3.7: Collinearity of $\bm{v}$ and $\bm{a}$
  • proof
  • Theorem 3.8: Autopilot Collinearity
  • proof