Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract— In this paper, we consider the problem of verifying to the state and input constraints in a series of linear
safety constraint satisfaction for single-input single-output sys- matrix inequalities (LMIs) [13]. To certify a larger safe
tems with uncertain transfer function coefficients. We propose region, composite quadratic Lyapunov functions can combine
a new type of barrier function based on a vector norm. This
type of barrier function has a measurable upper bound without multiple existing certificates, either centered at the origin
full state availability. An identifier-based estimator allows an [14] or with multiple equilibrium points [15]. The LQR-Tree
exact bound for the uncertainty-based component of the barrier strategy [16], which could potentially be applied to safety
function estimate. Assuming that the system is safe initially control, creates a series of connected regions of attraction
allows an exponentially decreasing bound on the error due to (also known as funnels) using quadratic Lyapunov functions
the estimator transient. Barrier function and estimator synthe-
sis is proposed as two convex sub-problems, exploiting linear for mapping the reachable state space. In [17], a strategy
matrix inequalities. The barrier function controller combination was proposed to observe the safety of a system through its
is then used to construct a safety backup controller. And we passivity which can be considered as a more conservative
demonstrate the system in a simulation of a 1 degree-of-freedom safety constraint than quadratic Lyapunov stability.
human–exoskeleton interaction. A state space realization models a physical process if
it correctly reproduces the corresponding output for each
I. I NTRODUCTION admissible input [18]. A Luenberger observer [19] asymptot-
Safe control is mission critical for robotic systems with ically estimates the state of such a model of a linear system
humans in the loop. Uncertain robot model parameters and with only the direct measurement of input and output. This
the lack of direct human state knowledge bring extra diffi- idea has also been extended for system with nonlinear mod-
culty to the stabilization of human–robot systems. Methods eling error [20]. For bounded modeling errors, the estimation
such as robust loop shaping [1], [2], [3], model reference error converges to a residue set instead of zero [21]. Recently,
adaptive control [4] and energy shaping control [5] aim a method of using sum-of-squares programming [22] aims
to balance the closed loop stability and performance of to optimize the converging rate of a robust state estimation
physical human robot interaction systems. However, there for uncertain nonlinear systems. But the estimated state still
is no backup controller if these systems fail to maintain cannot be directly used for evaluation of barrier functions
safety, because backup safety controllers require full state until it fully converges. The system could possibly violate
availability. the safety constraints before the barrier function estimation
For systems with direct state measurements, safety is becomes valid.
usually verified by a barrier certificate. Similar to a Lyapunov In this paper, we aim to close the gap between state
function, a barrier function or barrier certificate decreases estimation and safety assurance for uncertain systems. In
at the boundary of its zero level set [6]. While barrier order to address the barrier function estimation, we start
certificate can be synthesized automatically through sum- with an identifier-based state estimator [23] which provides
of-squares (SoS) optimization [7], a more ambitious goal us a state estimate that is linear with the uncertain trans-
is to combine the synthesis of the barrier function and the fer function coefficients. Then, we define a vector norm
controller together through a control barrier function [8]. based on a quadratic Lyapunov function such that a triangle
Various methods such as backstepping [9] and quadratic inequality can be applied to decompose it into estimated
programming [10], [11] create control barrier functions to state and estimation error. A convex polytopic bound on the
ensure output and state constraint satisfaction while other estimated state is availiable through the estimator structure,
methods such as semidefinite programming [12] aimed to and an upper bound on the estimation error arises from
also include input saturation. the convergence rate of the estimator and initial error. To
Safety warranties can also be considered a problem of obtain a larger safe (state-space) region, we extend this upper
finding an invariant set of the system which is also a subset bound searching strategy to another vector norm defined
the safe region in the state space. This allows us to consider based on a composite quadratic Lyapunov function [14],
using the synthesis of a quadratic Lyapunov function subject whose unit level set is a convex hull of the unit level
sets of multiple quadratic Lyapunov functions. Using these
This work was supported by the U.S. Government and NASA Space
Technology Research Fellowship NNX15AQ33H. We thank the members vector norms, we derive our proposed barrier functions for
of the Human Centered Robotics Lab, University of Texas at Austin uncertain systems with stable static output feedback. The
who provided insight and expertise that assisted the research. Authors synthesis of an estimator for the proposed barrier functions
are with The Departments of Mechanical Engineering (B.H., G.C.T.) and
Aerospace Engineering (L.S.), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. can be done in a two-step convex optimization using linear
Send correspondence to 1 binghan at utexas dot edu. matrix inequalities, first optimizing the barrier function and
then optimizing the estimator. This establishes a barrier pair where (AT0 , cT0 ) is a controllable pair in the canonical form.
[15], which can be used with a hybrid safety controller to Lemma 1: Suppose Ey = C0−1 ΘTy and Eu = C0−1 ΘTu
guarantee safety even for arbitrary inputs. In the end, our where C0 is the observability matrix of (c0 , A0 ), and Θy
hybrid safety controller is demonstrated in a simulation of and Θu are the controllability matrices of (AT0 , θy ) and
a simple human-exoskeleton interaction model with human (AT0 , θu ). Ey by + Eu bu converges to x exponentially.
stiffness uncertainty and velocity and force limits. Proof: This is similar to Lemma 2 in [24]. Notice
that C0 is also the transpose of the controllability matrix
II. P RELIMINARIES of (AT0 , cT0 ). We can derive from (9) that
A. Problem Statement
ĖyT = AT0 EyT + Iy,
Let us consider an n-th order strictly proper uncertain (10)
SISO system Σp with transfer function ĖuT = AT0 EuT + Iu.
These properties (a), (b) and (c) in Lemma 2 are also Ωpj
1.0
called the three characteristic properties of a vector norm.
Ωc
Lemma 3: Let k·k be a vector norm function satisfying
(a), (b) P
and (c) in Lemma PN2. Suppose there is a vector 0.5
N
x0 = j=1 γ j x j with j=1 γj = 1, γj < 1 for all
j = 1, 2, · · · , N and kx0 k = λ. Then there exists a xj
such that kxj k ≥ λ. x2 0.0
Proof: Suppose that kxj k < λ for all j = 1, 2, · · · , N .
Based on (b) in Lemma 2, we have kγj xk = |γj |kxk for all
j = 1, 2, · · · , N . −0.5
Applying (c) in Lemma 2 to kx0 k we get
N N N
X
X −1.0
X
kx0 k =
γj xj
≤ γj kxj k < γj λ = λ, (14)
j=1 j=1 j=1
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
which contradicts kx0 k = λ. x1
Fig. 1: A unit ball Ωc of kxkc equivalent to the convex hull
III. BARRIER E STIMATION of the ellipsoidal unit balls Ωpj of three different kxkpj .
The triangle inequality of vector norms allows us to de-
compose the state x into the estimated state x̂ and estimation
error . While we do not know x, we know x̂ and can bound B. Norm of Composite Quadratic Lyapunov Function
within a decaying window—allowing us to extend barrier
In order to obtain a larger safe region Xs , a composite
pairs [15] to systems without full state availability.
quadratic Lyapunov function is considered. For multiple
different quadratic Lyapunov functions defined with positive-
A. Norm of Quadratic Lyapunov Function
definite matrices Q1 , Q2 , · · · , Qnq , a composite quadratic
Let us define a quadratic Lyapunov function as Vq (x) = Lyapunov function [14] is defined as
xT Q−1 x where Q is positive definite matrix. We can form
a vector norm using its square root,
∆
∆ 1 Vc (x) = min xT Q−1 (γ)x, (19)
γ
kxkq = Vq (x),
2
(15) nq
∆
X
because Vq (x) is positive definite, Vq (λx) = λ2 Vq (x) and Q(γ) = γj Qj , (20)
the unit level set of V (x) is convex. j=1
C. Barrier Pairs Σe
Definition 1 (See [15]): A Barrier Pair is a pair of func- θ̇y = AT0 θy + cT0 y y
tions (B, k) with two following properties:
θ̇u = AT0 θu + cT0 u
(a) −1 < B(x) ≤ 0, u = k(x) =⇒ Ḃ(x) < 0,
(b) B(x) ≤ 0 =⇒ x ∈ X , k(x) ∈ U, x̂ = Ey by + Eu bu
where (a) and (b) are also called invariance and constraint
B̂
satisfaction. Σs
We can now introduce two barrier pairs using our vector Σp
norms and static output feedback controller. û u = û u y
ẋ = Ax + bu u
Proposition 1: Suppose Vq is a quadratic Lyapunov func- or
tion for system of (4) and (5) with a static output feedback y = c0 x
u = ky
u = ky and Ωq is a unit ball of kxkq defined as (15). If
Ωq ⊆ X ∩ {x | c0 x ∈ k−1 U}, (24) y
then (kxkq − 1, ky) is a barrier pair. Fig. 2: Block diagram consisting of plant Σp , estimator Σe
Proof: Let B(x) = kxkq − 1. Its time derivative is and hybrid safety controller Σs .
1
Ḃ(x) = kxk−1
q V̇q , (25) ∃ B̂(byi , bui ) ≥ B̄
2
which satisfies (a) in Definition 1. From (24), we also have
(b) in Definition 1 satisfied. start u = û u = ky
Proposition 2: Suppose Vc is a composite quadratic Lya-
punov function defined as (19) and (20) for the system of
∀ B̂(byi , bui ) ≤ B
(4) and (5), with static output feedback u = ky and that Ωc ¯
is a unit ball of kxkc defined as in (21). If we have Fig. 3: Switching logic of hybrid safety controller Σs .
Ωc ⊆ X ∩ {x | c0 x ∈ k−1 U}, (26)
then (kxkc − 1, ky) is a barrier pair. they can be enforced by LMIs
Proof: As in Proposition 1.
As in (17) and (23), upper bounds of the barrier functions fi QfiT ≤ 1, ∀ i = 1, 2, · · · , nf , (30)
of these two barrier pairs can be calculated using x̂ and 0 ū2
c0 QcT0 ≤ 2 . (31)
for all t ≥ 0. k
IV. S YNTHESIS To synthesize Qj , we maximize the width of the unit ball of
∆ xT Q−1
j x along some state space direction xj by minimizing
Both barrier functions Bc (x) = kxkc − 1 and their
ρj subject to the following LMI
identifier-based estimators can be synthesized with LMIs,
∆
through the sub-problem of synthesizing Bq (x) = kxkq − 1. ρj xTj
0, (32)
xj Qj
A. Qj Synthesis
With static output feedback, the closed loop system of (4) such that the optimization sub-problem becomes
is still a polytopic linear differential inclusion (PLDI) model
minimize ρj
[13] ẋ ∈ Ac x with Qj
6 6 −1
0 1 2 3 4
x2 0 x2 0 t (s)
(d)
−6 −6 0
Bc
−12 −12 −1 B̂c
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 5 10 15 20
x1 x1 t (s)
Fig. 5: Simulation results. In the fist experiment, the system state is initialized near the boundary of Ωc (phase plot in
(a)). The maximum B̂c (kh ) converges slower than Bc (in (c)). In the second experiment, an unsafe sinusoidal input û is
forced to be safely inside Ωc by a hybrid safety controller (phase plot in (b)). This safety controller activates only when
max(B̂c (kh )) u 0 (see (d)).
The proposed synthesis strategy can also be extended to [10] A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier
systems with a pre-specified dynamic output feedback— function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876,
albeit inefficiently. Though the states of a dynamic output 2016.
feedback controller are perfectly known, they can also be [11] Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Optimal robust safety-critical control for
considered part of the plant and estimated the same way dynamic robotics,” International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR),
in review, 2016.
as plant states. Input constraints can be incorporated as state [12] D. Pylorof and E. Bakolas, “Analysis and synthesis of nonlinear con-
constraints on the part of this composite plant that represents trollers for input constrained systems using semidefinite programming
controller states. Then, synthesis (33) and (34) can be applied optimization,” in 2016 American Control Conference (ACC). AACC,
2016, pp. 6959–6964.
directly by setting k to be zero. A more challenging problem, [13] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear matrix
left here as future work, is to optimize A0 for an estimator inequalities in system and control theory. Siam, 1994, vol. 15.
which does not redundantly identify the states of the dynamic [14] T. Hu and Z. Lin, “Composite quadratic lyapunov functions for con-
strained control systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
output feedback controller. vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 440–450, 2003.
[15] G. C. Thomas, B. He, and L. Sentis, “Safety control synthesis with
R EFERENCES input limits: a hybrid approach,” in 2018 Annual American Control
[1] S. P. Buerger and N. Hogan, “Complementary stability and loop Conference (ACC). AACC, 2018, pp. 792–797.
shaping for improved human–robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions [16] R. Tedrake, I. R. Manchester, M. Tobenkin, and J. W. Roberts, “Lqr-
on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 232–244, 2007. trees: Feedback motion planning via sums-of-squares verification,” The
[2] B. He, G. C. Thomas, N. Paine, and L. Sentis, “Modeling and loop International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1038–
shaping of single-joint amplification exoskeleton with contact sensing 1052, 2010.
and series elastic actuation,” in 2019 American Control Conference [17] B. Hannaford and J.-H. Ryu, “Time-domain passivity control of haptic
(ACC). AACC, 2019, pp. 4580–4587. interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 18,
[3] G. C. Thomas, J. M. Coholich, and L. Sentis, “Compliance shaping no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2002.
for control of strength amplification exoskeletons with elastic cuffs,” [18] A. Morse, “Representations and parameter identification of multi-
in Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ASME International Conference on output linear systems,” in 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and
Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. IEEE and ASME, July 2019, pp. Control including the 13th Symposium on Adaptive Processes. IEEE,
1199–1206. 1974, pp. 301–306.
[4] S. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Yao, X. Zhu, S. Zhu, Q. Wang, and Y. Song, [19] D. G. Luenberger, “Observing the state of a linear system,” IEEE
“Adaptive robust cascade force control of 1-dof hydraulic exoskeleton transactions on military electronics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 74–80, 1964.
for human performance augmentation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on [20] M. Zeitz, “The extended luenberger observer for nonlinear systems,”
Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 589–600, 2016. Systems & Control Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 149–156, 1987.
[5] G. Lv and R. D. Gregg, “Underactuated potential energy shaping with [21] M. Corless and J. Tu, “State and input estimation for a class of
contact constraints: Application to a powered knee-ankle orthosis,” uncertain systems,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 757–764, 1998.
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. [22] D. Pylorof, E. Bakolas, and K. S. Chan, “Design of robust lyapunov-
181–193, 2017. based observers for nonlinear systems with sum-of-squares program-
[6] S. Prajna and A. Jadbabaie, “Safety verification of hybrid systems us- ming,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 283–288, 2019.
ing barrier certificates,” in International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: [23] A. S. Morse, “Supervisory control of families of linear set-point
Computation and Control. Springer, 2004, pp. 477–492. controllers-part i. exact matching,” IEEE transactions on Automatic
[7] S. Prajna, “Barrier certificates for nonlinear model validation,” Auto- Control, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1413–1431, 1996.
matica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 117–126, 2006. [24] A. Morse, “Global stability of parameter-adaptive control systems,”
[8] P. Wieland and F. Allgöwer, “Constructive safety using control barrier IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 433–439,
functions,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 462–467, 1980.
2007. [25] C. A. Crusius and A. Trofino, “Sufficient LMI conditions for output
[9] K. P. Tee, S. S. Ge, and E. H. Tay, “Barrier lyapunov functions for the feedback control problems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 45, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1053–1057, 1999.
no. 4, pp. 918–927, 2009.