MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099300391

Robust Abstractions for Control Synthesis: Completeness via Robustness for Linear-Time Properties

2017· article· en· W3099300391 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceRobust controlLinear systemDecidabilityNonlinear systemControl theory (sociology)Completeness (order theory)AbstractionAlgorithmMathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We define robust abstractions for synthesizing provably correct and robust controllers for (possibly infinite) uncertain transition systems. It is shown that robust abstractions are sound in the sense that they preserve robust satisfaction of linear-time properties. We then focus on discrete-time control systems modelled by nonlinear difference equations with inputs and define concrete robust abstractions for them. While most abstraction techniques in the literature for nonlinear systems focus on constructing sound abstractions, we present computational procedures for constructing both sound and approximately complete robust abstractions for general nonlinear control systems without stability assumptions. Such procedures are approximately complete in the sense that, given a concrete discrete-time control system and an arbitrarily small perturbation of this system, there exists a finite transition system that robustly abstracts the concrete system and is abstracted by the slightly perturbed system simultaneously. A direct consequence of this result is that robust control synthesis for discrete-time nonlinear systems and linear-time specifications is robustly decidable. More specifically, if there exists a robust control strategy that realizes a given linear-time specification, we can algorithmically construct a (potentially less) robust control strategy that realizes the same specification. The theoretical results are illustrated with a simple motion planning example.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.009 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207