We propose a predictive runtime monitoring approach for linear systems with stochastic disturbances. The goal of the monitor is to decide if there exists a possible sequence of control inputs over a given time horizon to ensure that a safety property is maintained with a sufficiently high probability. We derive an efficient algorithm for performing the predictive monitoring in real time, specifically for linear time invariant (LTI) systems driven by stochastic disturbances. The algorithm implicitly defines a control envelope set such that if the current control input to the system lies in this set, there exists a future strategy over a time horizon consisting of the next N steps to guarantee the safety property of interest. As a result, the proposed monitor is oblivious of the actual controller, and therefore, applicable even in the presence of complex control systems including highly adaptive controllers. Furthermore, we apply our proposed approach to monitor whether a UAV will respect a “geofence” defined by a geographical region over which the vehicle may operate. To achieve this, we construct a data-driven linear model of the UAVs dynamics, while carefully modeling the uncertainties due to wind, GPS errors and modeling errors as time-varying disturbances. Using realistic data obtained from flight tests, we demonstrate the advantages and drawbacks of the predictive monitoring approach.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 20, 2024
Robustness analysis of uncertain time‐varying systems with unknown initial conditions
This paper focuses on the robustness analysis of discrete‐time, linear time‐varying (LTV) systems subject to various uncertainties, such as static and dynamic, time‐invariant and time‐varying, linear perturbations, and unknown initial conditions. The proposed approach is based on integral quadratic constraint theory and allows for a potentially more accurate characterization of the set in which the initial state resides by imposing separate constraints on the initial values of the state variables as opposed to simply requiring the initial state to lie in some ellipsoid. The adopted problem formulation facilitates the analysis of uncertain LTV systems subject to disturbance inputs that are bounded pointwise in time, and the developed results enable determining useful pointwise bounds on the performance outputs given such inputs. The main analysis result is given for eventually periodic nominal systems, which include linear time‐invariant, finite horizon, and periodic systems as special cases. The analysis conditions are expressed as linear matrix inequalities. Two additional results stemming from the main analysis theorem are provided that can be used to determine overapproximated ellipsoidal reachable sets. Finally, the utility of the proposed approach is demonstrated in an illustrative example.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10482096
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control
- ISSN:
- 1049-8923
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Scalable Computation of Controlled Invariant Sets for Discrete-Time Linear Systems with Input Delaysnull (Ed.)In this paper, we first propose a method that can efficiently compute the maximal robust controlled invariant set for discrete-time linear systems with pure delay in input. The key to this method is to construct an auxiliary linear system (without delay) with the same state-space dimension of the original system in consideration and to relate the maximal invariant set of the auxiliary system to that of the original system. When the system is subject to disturbances, guaranteeing safety is harder for systems with input delays. Ability to incorporate any additional information about the disturbance becomes more critical in these cases. Motivated by this observation, in the second part of the paper, we generalize the proposed method to take into account additional preview information on the disturbances, while maintaining computational efficiency. Compared with the naive approach of constructing a higher dimensional system by appending the state-space with the delayed inputs and previewed disturbances, the proposed approach is demonstrated to scale much better with the increasing delay time.more » « less
-
more » « less
Summary In this paper, we propose a filtering algorithm for simultaneously estimating the mode, input and state of hidden mode switched linear stochastic systems with unknown inputs. Using a multiple‐model approach with a bank of linear input and state filters for each mode, our algorithm relies on the ability to find the most probable model as a mode estimate, which we show is possible with input and state filters by identifying a key property, that a particular residual signal we call
generalized innovation is a Gaussian white noise. We also provide an asymptotic analysis for the proposed algorithm and provide sufficient conditions forasymptotically achieving convergence to the true model (consistency ), or to the “closest” model according to an information‐theoretic measure (convergence ). A simulation example of intention‐aware vehicles at an intersection is given to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. -
Abstract In this article, the recently discovered phenomenon of delayed Hopf bifurcations (DHB) in reaction–diffusion partial differential equations (PDEs) is analysed in the cubic Complex Ginzburg–Landau equation, as an equation in its own right, with a slowly varying parameter. We begin by using the classical asymptotic methods of stationary phase and steepest descents on the linearized PDE to show that solutions, which have approached the attracting quasi-steady state (QSS) before the Hopf bifurcation remain near that state for long times after the instantaneous Hopf bifurcation and the QSS has become repelling. In the complex time plane, the phase function of the linearized PDE has a saddle point, and the Stokes and anti-Stokes lines are central to the asymptotics. The non-linear terms are treated by applying an iterative method to the mild form of the PDE given by perturbations about the linear particular solution. This tracks the closeness of solutions near the attracting and repelling QSS in the full, non-linear PDE. Next, we show that beyond a key Stokes line through the saddle there is a curve in the space-time plane along which the particular solution of the linear PDE ceases to be exponentially small, causing the solution of the non-linear PDE to diverge from the repelling QSS and exhibit large-amplitude oscillations. This curve is called the space–time buffer curve. The homogeneous solution also stops being exponentially small in a spatially dependent manner, as determined also by the initial data and time. Hence, a competition arises between these two solutions, as to which one ceases to be exponentially small first, and this competition governs spatial dependence of the DHB. We find four different cases of DHB, depending on the outcomes of the competition, and we quantify to leading order how these depend on the main system parameters, including the Hopf frequency, initial time, initial data, source terms, and diffusivity. Examples are presented for each case, with source terms that are a uni-modal function, a smooth step function, a spatially periodic function and an algebraically growing function. Also, rich spatio-temporal dynamics are observed in the post-DHB oscillations. Finally, it is shown that large-amplitude source terms can be designed so that solutions spend substantially longer times near the repelling QSS, and hence, region-specific control over the delayed onset of oscillations can be achieved.more » « less
-
Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.more » « less
