Online Guaranteed Reachable Set Approximation for Systems with Changed Dynamics and Control Authority

Given the premise, this claim follows directly from Theorem 1. \square

Similarly to Corollary 1, given the premise, this claim follows directly from Theorem 1. \square

This result follows straightforwardly by application of the the triangle inequality on the trajectory deviation growth dynamics and Corollary 1. \square

The proof follows by repeated application of Corollary 1 on each dimension. \square

We consider the case where \# S_F (x_0) > 1; the case of a singleton is trivial. To show that the values of S_F (x_0) are path-connected, let us first note that for any x, y \in S_F (x_0), there exists a continuous path p : [0, 1] \to S_F (x_0) such that p(0) = x and p(1) = y. For all t, for any a, b \in S_F (x_0) (t), there exist at least one pair of functions (x_a, x_b) \subseteq S_F (x_0) such that x_a (t) = a, x_b (t) = b. Let p_{a, b} : [0, 1] \to S_F (x_0) be a path that connects x_a and x_b, which exists by path-connectedness of S_F (x_0). Then, p(\cdot)(t) : [0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}^n is a path between a and b. Hence, the values of S_F (x_0)(t) are path-connected for all t \in [0, \infty). \square

The fact that S_F (x_0) is a nonempty compact subset of S follows from [Tolstonogov1986, Thm. 5.1, p. 228]. It is clear that the values of S_F (x_0) will be nonempty, since \# S_F (x_0) > 0. Given some t \in [0, \infty), we define a functional E_t : S \to \mathbb{R}^n as E_t (x) := x(t). If E_t can be shown to be continuous, then E_t is a preserving map in the sense of [Gerlits2004, p. 21], i.e., the image E_t (S_F(x_0)) = S_F^t (x_0) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n preserves the compactness and path-connectedness properties of S_F(x_0). We proceed to show that E_t is indeed a continuous linear functional.

We require linearity to show that E_t is uniformly continuous on all of S. To show that E_t is linear, consider two functionals x, y \in S, and a scalar \alpha \in \mathbb{R}. We clearly find

If E_t is linear, by [Taylor1986, Thm. 1.1, p. 54] it suffices to show that E_t is continuous at any one y \in S. Continuity of the functional is shown next by using the \delta–\epsilon criterion [Taylor1986, p. 52].

We proceed to show that for each \epsilon > 0, there exists some \epsilon' > 0 such that \Vert E_t (x) - E_t (y) \Vert < \epsilon for all x \in S such that d_S (x, y) < \epsilon'. To this end, let us define a_k := \int_0^k \Vert \dot{x}(t) - \dot{y}(t) \Vert \ \mathrm{d}t. By definition of the solution set, we have for any x, y \in S_F (x_0):

since x(0) = y(0) = x_0.

We know by path-connectedness of S_F (x_0) that for any x \in S_F (x_0), given some \epsilon' > 0, there exists y \in S_F (x_0) \setminus \{x\} such that d_S (x, y) < \epsilon'. In general, we can upper-bound the difference between values of x and y at time t as follows:

which follows from Jensen’s inequality [Folland1999, p. 109].

Given some \epsilon > 0 and t \in (0, \infty), let K := \lceil t \rceil \in \mathbb{N}. Since \int_0^t \Vert \dot{x}(s) - \dot{y}(s) \Vert \ \mathrm{d}s < \epsilon implies d(x(t), y(t)) < \epsilon, it suffices to show that there exists some \epsilon' > 0, such that any y \in S_F (x_0) \setminus \{x\} that satisfies d_S (x, y) < \epsilon' yields \int_0^t \Vert \dot{x}(s) - \dot{y}(s) \Vert \ \mathrm{d}s < \epsilon. We choose \epsilon' as follows:

We may evaluate \epsilon'(t, \epsilon) as

If we consider y \in S_F (x_0) \setminus \{x\} such that d_S (x, y) < \epsilon'(t, \epsilon), we have therefore shown that we obtain d(x(t), y(t)) < \epsilon; at least one such y exists by path-connectedness of S_F (x_0). We thus proved continuity of E_t.

Having shown that E_t is a continuous (linear) operator (and therefore a preserving map), we have proven that E_t (S_F(x_0)) is a path-connected continuum for all t \in [0, \infty) and x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n.

\square

We draw upon [Zhu1991, Cor. 4.5, p. 233], which says that the choice of F in Lemma 3 is sufficient for the solution set S_F : \mathbb{R}^n \rightrightarrows S to be continuous on \mathbb{R}^n. In other words, the solution set S_F has a continuous dependence on the initial value.

We characterize the reachable set as follows:

It is clear that for any two values a, b \in R_F (t), there exist x_0, x_0' \in \mathscr{X}_0 such that a \in S_F^t (x_0) and b \in S_F^t (x_0'). Since \mathscr{X}_0 is path-connected and S_F is continuous, there exists a continuous path p_0 : [0, 1] \to \mathscr{X}_0 connecting x_0 and x_0'. Therefore, the solution sets for S_F (x_0) and S_F (x_0') are connected by a path p_s = S_F \ \circ \ p_0 : [0, 1] \rightrightarrows S. Since S_F' (x_0, x_0') := \bigcup_{\tau \in [0, 1]} p_s (\tau) is path-connected, this implies that its values are also path-connected, analogous to the latter part of the proof of Proposition 1. Hence, R_F (t) is path-connected for all t \in [0, \infty). \square

40 This fact follows directly from Lemma 2. 40 From (i), the maximal distance between two points in \mathbb{X}_t^\rightarrow (F, \mathscr{X}_0) and \mathbb{X}_t^\rightarrow (G, \mathscr{X}_0) is upper-bounded by \eta(t, \epsilon). In Theorem 1 it was shown that \eta(t, \epsilon) is increasing in t, meaning that the hyperrectangular distance bound holds for all times t \leq t_0 + T.

40 We define A = \mathbb{X}^\rightarrow_t (G, \mathscr{X}_0) and B = \mathbb{X}^\rightarrow_t (F, \mathscr{X}_0) for any t \in [t_0, t_0 + T]. Note that in this proof, unlike in [El-Kebir2021a], A and B need not be convex, making the proof more technically challenging. We wish to show that C := B \setminus (\partial B)_{\boxplus \eta^*} is a subset of A.

The inclusion C \subseteq A can equivalently be shown by demonstrating that for all x \in B \setminus A, we have x \in (\partial B)_{\boxplus \eta^*}; we prove the latter claim by contradiction. Assume that there indeed exists x \in B \setminus A such that x \not\in (\partial B)_{\boxplus \eta^*}. This point then will have some i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}, such that have d_i (x, \partial B) := \min \{|x_i - y_i| : y \in \partial B\} > \eta_i^*. From the characterization of \eta^* in Lemma 2 and the definition of the hyperrectangular distance in Definition 4, we have d_{\text{R}}(A, B) \leq \eta^*. In light of the contradiction given above, this inequality would then necessarily yield the following equivalent contradiction:

\begin{split} d_i (x, \partial B) > \max\{ &\max_{x' \in A} \min \{|x_i' - y_i| : y \in B\}, \\ &\max_{x' \in B} \min \{|x_i' - y_i| : y \in A\} \}, \end{split}

which implies

\min \{ |x_i - y_i| : y \in \partial B\} > \max_{x' \in \partial B} \min \{ |x_i' - y_i| : y \in A \}.

Let y^* \in \partial B be such that d_i (x, y^*) = \min \{ |x_i - y_i| : y \in \partial B \}. By the hypotheses, in particular the compactness of B, there exists some x^* \in A such that |x^* - y^*| \preceq \eta^*.

We identify two cases: a) x \in \partial B \cap (B \setminus A), and b) x \in B \setminus (A \cup \partial B). In case a), we find d_i (x, \partial B) = 0, which produces the desired contradiction.

We now consider case b). Let us denote by X_i the projection of all points of a set X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n onto the i-th Cartesian axis, such that X_i \subseteq \mathbb{R}. Since A and B are both compact, connected, and nonempty, we find that A_i and B_i are closed intervals in \mathbb{R} for each i = 1, \ldots, n. This fact follows trivially by considering that the projection operation is continuous, and continuous maps are preserving maps in the sense of [Gerlits2004, p. 21], i.e., their images preserve connectedness and compactness. From [Sutherland2009, Thm. 12.8, p. 116], any connected subspace of \mathbb{R} is an interval, which shows that the A_i, B_i are compact (or closed) intervals.

We can then note that for any y_i^*, there exists some x^* \in A such that |x_i^* - y_i^*| \leq \eta^*_i by Lemma 2.

Finally, let y_i \in \partial B_i be the other point in the boundary of the interval B_i such that y_i \neq y_i^*.

We can identify twelve arrangements of (x, x^*, y, y^*), barring cases of symmetry. Some of these arrangements are inadmissible, as shown below. In what follows, we must have y^* \neq y, since x would otherwise be on the boundary of B, which was treated as case a). Also, necessarily, x \neq x^*, since we have x \not\in A. We prove that for each admissible arrangement, the claim of (?) does not hold; an illustration of some of these arrangements in given in Fig. ?. For some a, b, c, d \in \mathbb{R}, we will denote the ordering a < b < c < d by the shorthand notation a, b, c, d. We have:

40 x_i^*, x_i, y_i^*, y_i: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A. 40 x_i^*, x_i, y_i, y_i^*; Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A, and inconsistent with the definition of y^*. 40 x_i^*, y_i^*, x_i, y_i: In this case, by Lemma 2 we have d(x_i^*, y_i^*) \leq \eta^*_i. Since we have d(x_i, y_i^*) < d(x_i^*, y_i^*), we find that d(x_i, y_i^*) < \eta^*_i. 40 x_i^*, y_i^*, y_i, x_i: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A. 40 x_i^*, y_i, x_i, y_i^*: We have d(x_i^*, y_i^*) \leq \eta^*_i and d(x_i, y_i^*) < d(x_i^*, y_i^*), which implies d(x_i, y_i^*) < \eta^*_i. 40 x_i^*, y_i, y_i^*, x_i: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A. 40 x_i, x_i^*, y_i^*, y_i: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A. 40 x_i, x_i^*, y_i, y_i^*: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A, and not consistent with the definition of y^*. 40 x_i, y_i^*, x_i^*, y_i: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A. 40 x_i, y_i, x_i^*, y_i^*: Not admissible since x \not\in B \setminus A, and inconsistent with the definition of y^*. 40 y_i^*, x_i^*, x_i, y_i: We have d(x_i, y_i) \geq d(x_i, y_i^*), d(x_i^*, y_i) > d(x_i, y_i), as well as d(x_i^*, y_i) \leq \eta^*_i. From this it follows that d(x_i, y_i^*) < \eta^*_i. 40 y_i^*, x_i, x_i^*, y_i: We have d(x_i, y_i^*) < d(x_i^*, y_i^*) \leq \eta^*_i.

Having considered all cases, in all admissible scenarios it follows that the statement in (?) is false. This in turn contradicts the claim that there exists x \in B \setminus A such that x \not\in (\partial B)_{\boxplus \eta^*}. Therefore, we have proven that C \subseteq A.

\square

The proof immediately follows by consideration of Corollary 2. \square

40 This claim follows from Lemma 1, where we have used the following inequality:

\Vert u(t) - v(t) \Vert \leq \Vert u(t) \Vert + \Vert v(t) \Vert \leq \delta + \delta + d_{\mathrm{H}} (\mathscr{U}, \mathscr{V}) \leq 2\delta + \epsilon,

which follows from the triangle inequality, as well as the definition of the Hausdorff distance. 40 This fact follows directly from Lemma 1. 40 The proof here is similar to that of Theorem 2(iii), where we consider that any point in A has a counterpart in B that is distance \eta(t_f, 2\delta + \epsilon) away. The proof is immediate from this consideration and Lemma 2.