Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator∗
Alberto Casagrande
Dept. of Matematics and Geoscience
University of Trieste, Italy
acasagrande@units.it

Tommaso Dreossi

Carla Piazza

Dept. of Matematics and Computer Science
University of Udine, Italy
dreossi.tommaso@spes.uniud.it
carla.piazza@uniud.it

In this paper we propose a hybrid model of a neural oscillator, obtained by partially discretizing a
well-known continuous model. Our construction points out that in this case the standard techniques,
based on replacing sigmoids with step functions, is not satisfactory. Then, we study the hybrid model
through both symbolic methods and approximation techniques. This last analysis, in particular, allows us to show the differences between the considered approximation approaches. Finally, we focus
on approximations via ε-semantics, proving how these can be computed in practice.

Introduction
Neural oscillations are rhythmic and repetitive electrical stimuli which play an important role in the
activities of several brain regions. Some examples of brain locations in which it has been demonstrated
the central role of neural oscillations are the cortex [17], the thalamus [18], and the olfactory information
processing [8]. With the aim of understanding neurophysiological activities, we propose the modeling of
oscillatory phenomena exploiting hybrid automata.
A continuous model of a single oscillator based on an ordinary differential system has been proposed
in [19]. Even if this is a simple model, its analysis and the analysis of its composition in multiple copies
is limited due to the non-linearity of the ordinary differential system involved. For this reason, we are
interested in the development of a piecewise affine hybrid automaton which correctly approximates the
continuous model and on which automatic analysis and composition can be made.
Trying to linearize the non-linear components of the original continuous model, we first replace in
the standard way the sigmoidal behaviours with sign functions [9, 14], approximating continuos signals
with discrete off-on signals. Unfortunately, the behaviour of this model differs from the original one. For
this reason, we propose a more sophisticated approximation of sigmoidals based on a piecewise linear
function exploited in the development of a hybrid automaton which simulates a single oscillator.
It is well known that the reachability problem over hybrid automata is source of undecidability.
Moreover, the exact computation of the reachable sets of hybrid automata, which represents the basis of
the automatic analysis of the models, does not always reflect the behaviour of the real modeled systems.
This is due to the fact that real systems are often subject to noise, thus their evolutions do not correspond
to a single precise formalization. This has been noticed already in [19] in the specific case of the continuous model of the neural oscillator. For these reasons, we study our hybrid automaton exploiting different
approximation techniques that introduce noise.
In the literature, several approximation techniques have been proposed (see, e.g., [7, 16, 10, 3, 15]).
Fränzle in [7] presents a model of noise over hybrid automata. The introduction of noise ensures in many
cases the (semi-)decidability of the reachability problem. Another result of (semi-)decidability always
based on the concept of perturbation and concerning the safety verification of hybrid systems is given by
∗ This

work has been partially supported by Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).

Ezio Bartocci and Luca Bortolussi (Eds.): HSB 2012
EPTCS 92, 2012, pp. 58–72, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.92.5

c A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License.

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

59

Ratschan in [16]. Furthermore, ε-(bi)simulation [10] relations, which are essentially relaxations on the
infinite precision required by simulation and bisimulation, represent tools able to remove complexity and
undecidability issues related to the analysis of the investigated model. Moreover, in [3] it is presented a
different approach based on the reinterpretation of the standard semantics of the formulæ which compose
hybrid automata. Exploiting this new class of semantics, called ε-semantics, the authors provide a result
of decidability of the reachability problem over hybrid automata with bounded invariants.
In this paper, we focus precisely on the approximation approach based on the ε-semantics. In particular, we propose a translation that allows us to reduce the ε-semantics evaluation to the standard
semantics evaluation, computable by exploiting tools for cylindrical algebraic decomposition. Then, we
present some properties which have been automatically tested on the neural oscillator by applying such
translation. Hence, in this work, we prove both that ε-semantics better represents the real behaviour of
the neural oscillator, than the standard one, and that the approach is effective.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 1 gives some basic definitions concerning logics and hybrid automata; Section 2 is dedicated to the mathematical modeling of the neural oscillator; in Section 3
we present different approximation techniques based on noise, perturbation, approximate (bi)simulations,
and ε-semantics. Section 4 exposes some considerations regarding the application of the previously presented approximation approaches to the investigated model. Finally, in Section 5, we first define a
translation which make effectively computable the ε-semantics, then we experimentally exploit it in the
analysis of the hybrid automaton which models the neural oscillator. All the proofs can be found at
http://www.dimi.uniud.it/piazza/hsb2012_extended.pdf.

1
1.1

Hybrid Automata
Preliminaries

We formally define hybrid automata by using first-order languages and, because of that, we first need to
introduce some basic notions and our notation.
We use X, Xi , Y , Yi , W , and Wi to denote real variables and X, Xi , Y, Yi , W, and Wi to denote tuple
of real variables. We always assume that all the variables that occur bound in a formula do not occur free
and vice versa. This enables us to label variables, rather than occurrences, as free or bound. We write
ϕ[X1 , . . . , Xm ] to stress the fact that X1 , . . ., Xm are free in ϕ. By extension, ϕ[X1 , . . . , Xn ] indicates that
the components of vectors X1 , . . ., Xn are free in ϕ.
The formula obtained from ϕ[X1 , . . . , Xm ] by replacing Xi by s0 , where s0 is either a constant or a variable, is denoted by ϕJXi /s0 K. By extension, ϕJXi . . . Xi+n /s0 . . . sn K indicates the formula obtained from
ϕ[X1 , . . . , Xm ] by simultaneously replacing all the variables Xi . . . Xi+n by s0 . . . sn . If X = hXi , . . . , Xi+n i,
~s0 = hs0 , . . . , sn i, ~s1 = hsn+1 , . . . , s2∗n+1 i, and ; is a relational symbol (e.g., = or ≥), then we
 may
V
write ϕJX/~s0 K in place of ϕJXi . . . Xi+n /s0 . . . sn K and ~s0 ; ~s1 in place of j∈[0,n] s j ; s j+k∗n (e.g.,
h7, Xi = h2, 3i means 7 = 2 ∧ X = 3). Finally, if ϕ[X1 , . . . , Xi , . . . , Xn ] then we may denote the formula
ϕJXi /~sK by writing ϕJX1 , . . . ,~s, . . . , Xn K.
The semantics of a formula is defined in the standard way (see. e.g., [6]). Given a set Γ of sentences
and a sentence ϕ, we say that ϕ is a logical consequence of Γ (denoted, Γ |= ϕ) if ϕ is valid in any
model M in which each formula of Γ is valid too (M |= Γ). A theory T is a set of sentences such that
if T |= ϕ, then ϕ ∈ T . A theory T admits the so-called elimination of quantifiers, if, for any formula
ϕ, there exists in T a quantifier free formula ρ such that ϕ is equivalent to ρ with respect to T . If there
exists an algorithm for deciding whether a sentence ϕ belongs to T or not, we say that T is decidable.

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

60
def

Example 1. Consider the formula ϕ = ∃X (a ∗ X 2 + b ∗ X + c = 0). It is well known that ϕ is in the
theory of reals with +, ∗, and ≥ if and only if the unquantified formula b2 − 4ac ≥ 0 holds.

1.2

Syntax, Semantics, and Reachability

A hybrid automaton is an infinite state automaton that consists in a set of continuos variables and a finite
directed graph. Each node of a graph is labelled by both an invariant condition and a dynamic law, while
all the edges are tagged with an activation region and a reset map. The continuous variables evolve
according to the dynamic law of the current node of the graph and the node’s invariant condition must be
satisfied along all the evolution. An edge is crossable if and only if the variable values are included the
activation region and, when a hybrid automata jumps over it, the associated reset map is applied.
Definition 1 (Hybrid Automata - Syntax). A hybrid automaton H of dimension d(H) ∈ N is a tuple hX,
X0 , V, E, Inv, f· , Act, Resi where:
• X = hX1 , . . ., Xn i and X0 = hX10 , . . ., Xn0 i are two vectors of variables ranging over the reals R;
• hV, Ei is a directed finite graph, i.e., E ⊆ V × V. Each element of V will be dubbed location;

• Each location v ∈ V is labelled by both a formula Inv(v)[X], called invariant, and a continuous
function fv : Rn −→ (R≥0 −→ Rn ), called dynamics or flow function. The dynamics may be
specified either by differential equations, i.e., fv is the solution of a given Cauchy problem, or by
a logic formula. We use the formula Dyn(v)[X, X0 , T ], where T is a temporal variable ranging in
def
R≥0 , to denote the dynamics on v, i.e., Dyn(v)[X, X0 , T ] = X0 = fv (X)(T );

• Each e ∈ E is labelled by the formulæ Act(e)[X] and Res(e)[X, X0 ] which are called activation and
reset, respectively.
If all the formulæ that define a hybrid automaton H belong to the same logical theory T , then we
say that H is definable in T or that H is a T hybrid automaton.
The semantics of any hybrid automaton can be specified as a transition system that is composed by
two different relations miming the double nature of the hybrid automaton itself: the continuous reachability transition relation and the discrete reachability transition relation.
Definition 2 (Hybrid Automaton - Semantics). A state a of H is a pair hv, ri, where v ∈ V is a location
and r ∈ Rd(H) is an assignment of values for the variables of X. A state hv, ri is said to be admissible if
Inv(v)JrK holds.
t
The continuous transition relation →
− C between admissible states, where t ≥ 0 denotes the transition
elapsed time, is defined as follows:
t
hv, ri →
− C hv, si ⇐⇒ r = fv (r)(0), s = fv (r)(t), and Inv(v)J fv (r)(t 0 )K hold for each t 0 ∈ [0,t].
e
The discrete transition relation →
− D among admissible states is:
e

hv, ri →
− D hv, si

⇐⇒

e = hv, v0 i and both Act(e)JrK and Res(e)Jr, sK hold.

t

We write a →C a0 and a →D a0 to mean that there exists a t ∈ R≥0 such that a →
− C a0 and that there
e
0
exists an e ∈ E such that a →
− D a , respectively.
Definition 3 (Reachability). Let I be either N or an initial finite interval of N. A trace of H is a sequence
of admissible states a0 , a1 , . . . , a j , . . . , with j ∈ I , such that ai−1 → ai holds for all i ∈ [1, n] and either
ai−2 →C ai−1 →D ai , ai−2 →D ai−1 →D ai , or ai−2 →D ai−1 →C ai for each i ∈ I \ {0}1 .
The automaton H reaches a state an from a state a0 if there exists a trace a0 , . . . , an . In such a case,
we also say that an is reachable from a0 in H.
1 This

last condition supports not transitive dynamics. See [4] for a complete discussion.

61

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

The problem of deciding whether a hybrid automaton H reaches a set of states S from a set of states
R is known as the reachability problem of S from R over H. A trace produced by an infinite sequence
of discrete transitions during a bounded amount of time is called Zeno trace and every hybrid automaton
allowing such kind of trace is said to have a Zeno behaviour.
Example 2. Let us consider a hybrid automaton Hb modeling a bouncing ball whose collisions are
inelastic. The automaton is equipped with two continuous variables X1 and X2 that represent ball’s
Ẋ1 = X2
Ẋ2 = −g

X10 = X1
X20 = −γX2

Figure 1: Bouncing ball hybrid automaton.
elevation and velocity, respectively. The dynamics, resets, and discrete structure of Hb are presented in
Fig. 1. The two coefficients g and γ are the standard gravity and the coefficient of restitution, respectively.
The activation formula of the automaton edge is “X1 = 0”.
Imposing as starting height h0 = 10m and as coefficient of restitution γ = 0.86, the bounce peaks
decrease at each iteration and the automaton Hb has a Zeno behaviour.
As the halting problem for the two counter machine can be reduced to the reachability problem of
a particular class of hybrid automata, the reachability problem for hybrid automata itself is not always
decidable [1]. However, if H is a T -hybrid automaton and T is a first-order decidable theory, then
the reachability through a bounded number of discrete transitions can be characterized with a first-order
decidable formula (see e.g., [4]). In particular, in the case of automata defined through polynomials over
the reals, we can use cylindrical algebraic decomposition tools to decide bounded reachability.

2

Neural Oscillator: Continuous and Hybrid Models

Oscillatory electrical stimuli have been considered central for the activities of several brain regions since
the begin of the ’80s. It was shown that they play an important role in the olfactory information processing [8] and they were observed in the thalamus [18], and in the cortex [17]. Many studies suggested
that, in the mammalian visual system, neurons signals may be group together through in-phase oscillations [11]. Because of this, the development and analysis of models representing oscillatory phenomena
assume a great importance in understanding the neurophysiological activities.
A simple continuous model of a single oscillator has been proposed in [19]. The model describes
the evolutions of one excitatory neuron (Ne ) and one inhibitory neuron (Ni ) by mean of the ordinary
differential system.

Ẋe = − Xτe + tanh (λ ∗ Xe ) − tanh (λ ∗ Xi )
f (τ, λ ) :
,
(1)
Ẋi = − Xτi + tanh (λ ∗ Xe ) + tanh (λ ∗ Xi )
where Xe and Xi are the output of Ne and Ni , respectively, τ is a characteristic time constant, and λ > 0
is the amplification gain. Hopf bifurcation characterizes a qualitative change in the evolution of f (τ, λ ):
if τ ∗ λ ≤ 1, then the point h0, 0i is the unique global attractor of the system, if, otherwise, τ ∗ λ > 1,
the origin is an unstable equilibrium and all the evolutions converge to a limit cycle attractor [2]. A
simulation of f (3, 1) is represented in Fig. 4(a).

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

62
Xi

v1

v0

Trajectory from (-0.5,-0.5)
Trajectory from (-1.0,6.0)

6

Ẋe = − Xτe
Ẋi = − Xτi

Ẋe = − Xτe
Ẋi = − Xτi + 2

−2

v2

4
2

Xe

v3

0
2

Ẋe = − Xτe
Ẋi = − Xτi − 2

Ẋe = − Xτe + 2
Ẋi = − Xτi

4
6
6

(a) The automaton has 4 locations. The dashed lines
denote both the boundaries of the invariants and the
activation regions. The resets are identify functions.

4

2

0

2

4

6

(b) Direction field and evolution of the automaton from the two
points h− 12 , − 21 i and h−1, 6i when τ = 3. The automaton has
four attractors, is not periodic, and its principal axes are stable.

Figure 2: The piecewise hybrid automaton associated to the function fˆ(τ).
Even if f (τ, λ ) is rather simple, the ability of analyzing a complex system obtained by composing
multiple copies of this model is limited due to the non-linearity of f (τ, λ ) itself. For this reason, we are
interested in the development of a piecewise affine hybrid model whose behaviour fairly approximates
System (1) and that can be automatically analyzed and composed.
Since the non-linear components in System (1) have the form tanh (λ ∗ X), we try to linearize such
function. In the case of genetic networks it is quite standard to approximate sigmoidal behaviours (e.g.,
tanh) through the sign function sgn [9, 14]. Such approximation replaces a continuous signal with a
discrete off-on one. In our case, by replacing tanh (λ ∗ X) with sgn (X) in System (1), we obtain the
following differential system:

Ẋe = − Xτe + sgn (Xe ) − sgn (Xi )
ˆf (τ) :
,
(2)
Ẋi = − Xτi + sgn (Xe ) + sgn (Xi )

which corresponds to the piecewise hybrid model depicted in Fig. 2(a). Unfortunately, the behaviour
of this model is quite different from that of System (1), as we can see comparing the simulation in
Fig. 2(b) with that of Fig. 4(a). In particular, the model based on fˆ(τ) has four attractors with coordinates
h−2 ∗ τ, 0i, h0, −2 ∗ τi, h2 ∗ τ, 0i, and h0, 2 ∗ τi, it is not periodic, and its principal axes are stable.
A more sophisticated approximation of tanh (λ ∗ X) is the piecewise linear function:

if z < − αλ
 −1
def
λ
(3)
hλ ,α (z) =
∗ z if − αλ ≤ z < αλ ,
 α
1
if z ≥ αλ

where α is the approximation coefficient which determines the slope of the central segment. The substitution of tanh (λ ∗ X) with hλ ,α (z) in System (1) leads to the system:

Ẋe = − Xτe + hλ ,α (Xe ) − hλ ,α (Xi )
˜fα (τ, λ ) :
,
(4)
Ẋi = − Xτi + hλ ,α (Xe ) + hλ ,α (Xi )

63

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

whose corresponding hybrid automaton is depicted in Fig. 3. A different approximation could be obtained by using the technique proposed in [12].
Xi

v8

v7

v6
−α
Ẋe = τ∗λ
τ∗α Xe − 1
λ
Ẋi = α Xe − Xτi + 1

Ẋe = − Xτe − 2
Ẋi = − Xτi

v1

Ẋe = − Xτe
Ẋi = − Xτi + 2

v0

Ẋe = − Xτe − αλ Xi − 1
−α
Ẋi = τ∗λ
τ∗α Xi − 1

v2

λ
−α
Ẋe = τ∗λ
τ∗α Xe − α Xi
−α
Ẋi = αλ Xe + τ∗λ
τ∗α Xi

v3

Ẋe = − Xτe − αλ Xi + 1
−α
Ẋi = τ∗λ
τ∗α Xi + 1

Xe = − αλ

α
λ

Xe

Xi = − αλ

v4
−α
Ẋe = τ∗λ
τ∗α Xe + 1
Ẋi = αλ Xe − Xτi − 1

Ẋe = − Xτe
Ẋi = − Xτi − 2

Xi =

v5

Ẋe = − Xτe + 2
Ẋi = − Xτi

Xe =

α
λ

Figure 3: A graphical representation of the hybrid automaton H f˜ associated to the function f˜α (τ, λ ).
In the rest of the paper we present some general techniques for studying hybrid automata and then
we apply them to H fˆ to formally prove its properties.

3
3.1

Approximation Techniques
Noise and Disturbed Automata

The density of continuous variables provide an unbounded quantity of memory within a bounded region.
As a matter of fact, the undecidability results proved in [13] are based on the possibility of embedding N
in (0, 1] ⊆ R through the function f (n) = 2−n .
However, Fränzle in [7] observed that noise disturbes the trajectiories of real hybrid systems, augmenting the set of reachable points. Hence, in [7] a model of noise has been presented over hybrid
automata. Remarkably, the introduction of noise ensures in many cases the (semi-)decidability of the
reachability problem.
Our definitions of hybrid automata slightly differ from the ones in [7]. In particular, as far as the
syntax is concerned, the formulæ Act(e)[X] and Res(e)[X, X0 ] are glued together in a formula called
transe [X, X0 ]. Moreover, our formulæ Inv(v)[X] and Dyn(v)[X, X0 , T ] are replaced by a single formula

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

64

Trajectory from (-0.5,-0.5)
Trajectory from (-1.0,6.0)

6
4

4

2

2

0

0

2

2

4

4

6

Trajectory from (-0.5,-0.5)
Trajectory from (-1.0,6.0)

6

6
6

4

2

0

2

4

6

(a) An evolution of f (3, 1).

6

4

2

0

2

4

6

(b) An evolution of f˜2 (3, 1).

Figure 4: Direction field and evolution of the models discussed in Section 2.
actv [X, X0 ] whose meaning in our framework is:
∃T (T ≥ 0 ∧ X0 = fv (X)(T ) ∧ ∀T 0 (0 ≤ T 0 ≤ T → Inv(v) fv (X)(T 0 ))),
i.e., the formula actv [X, X0 ] syntactically ensures the existence of a continuous transition. Exploiting
these relationships between our hybrid automata and the hybrid automata defined through the formulæ
actv [X, X0 ] and transe [X, X0 ], we can reformulate the results presented in [7] in our framework.
Definition 4. Given a hybrid automaton H = hX, X0 , V, E, Inv, f· , Act, Resi we say that the hybrid
f ef· , Act, Resi is a disturbed variant of H if for each pair of states a, a0 if
e = hX, X0 , V, E, Inv,
automaton H
e
a →C a0 in H, then a →C a0 in H.
e is a disturbance of noise level ε or more if
Moreover, let δ be a distance over Rd(H) and ε ∈ R>0 . H
0
0
e
for each s, s such that δ (s, s ) < ε it holds that if hv, ri →C hv, si in H, then hv, ri →C hv, s0 i in H.
e are
Intuitively, when there are no bifurcation behaviours, a small ε ensures that the dynamics of H
close to those of H.
In [7] it has been proved that in the case of bounded invariants there exists a finite computable index
i ∈ N such that the reachability over H can be over-approximated with reachability within i discrete
jumps over a disturbance of noise level ε or more of H.
e be T hybrid automata, with H
e
Theorem 1. [7] Let T be a decidable first-order theory. Let H, H
disturbance of noise level ε or more of H for some ε ∈ R>0 . There exists i such that for all pairs of
e within i discrete transitions. Moreover, i can be
states a, a0 if a reaches a0 in H, then a reaches a0 in H
effectively computed.
Unfortunately, there are cases in which the over-approximation is always strict, no matter how small
ε is. Such automata are called fragile, in contrast with robust automata, where if a does not reach a0
e disturbance of noise level ε such that a does not reach a0 in H.
e As a
in H, there exist ε ∈ R>0 and H
consequence, reachability is decidable over robust automata, while it is only semi-decidable over fragile
automata. It is not possible to decide whether a hybrid automaton is robust or fragile. Intuitively, since
real world systems are always subject to noise, a hybrid automaton is a reliable model of the real system
only if it is robust. So, it is fundamental to develop and exploit design techniques which ensure robustness
of the resulting hybrid automata.

65

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

3.2

Approximate Bisimulations and Simulations

Since the 90’s, simulation and bisimulation have been successfully used to investigate hybrid automata.
However, due to the infinite precision required to relate different evolutions, these tools are able to remove
neither the complexity nor the undecidability issues that may affect the analysis of the investigated model.
The ε-(bi)simulation relations [10] relaxes these infinite precision requirements by relating system evolutions whose maximal distance is less than a given ε. This enables us to simplify both the dynamics
and the resets of the investigated automaton. Moreover, provided an observation map hh·ii : Rd(H) −→ Rd
that associates the internal status of an automaton H to the values measurable by an external observer,
ε-(bi)simulations allow to relate the “visible” behaviours of H to the behaviours of an automaton whose
dimension is smaller than d(H).
Any pair of hybrid automata H1 to H2 related by an ε-simulation must have the same discrete structure
and share the same locations V and edges E by definition.
Definition 5. Let Hi = hXi , Xi 0 , V, E, Invi , f·,i , Acti , Resi i be a hybrid automaton for each i ∈ {1, 2}.
Moreover, let ε be in R≥0 . A relation Sε ⊆ (V × Rd(H1 ) ) × (V × Rd(H2 ) ) is an approximate simulation
relation of H1 by H2 of precision ε if, for all hhv1 , r1 i , hv2 , r2 ii ∈ Sε :
1. v1 = v2 = v;
2. k hhr1 ii1 − hhr2 ii2 k ≤ ε;
t

t

3. if hv, r1 i →
− C hv, r10 i in H1 , there exists r20 s.t. hv, r2 i →
− C hv, r20 i in H2 and hhv, r10 i , hv, r20 ii ∈ Sε ;
e

e

4. if hv, r1 i →
− D hv0 , r10 i in H1 , there exists r20 s.t. hv, r2 i →
− D hv0 , r20 i in H2 and hhv0 , r10 i , hv0 , r20 ii ∈ Sε .
The automaton H2 approximately simulates H1 with precision ε if there exists an approximate simulation relation of H1 by H2 of precision ε. An approximate simulation relation Sε of H1 by H2 of
precision ε is an approximate bisimulation relation between H1 and H2 of precision ε if the relation
Sε−1 = {ha2 , a1 i | ha1 , a2 i ∈ Sε } is an approximate simulation relation of H2 by H1 of precision ε.
Many methods have been developed to automatically compute approximate simulation relations between systems such as constrained linear systems, autonomous nonlinear systems, and hybrid systems.

3.3 ε-Semantics
The undecidability of the reachability problem over hybrid automata having bounded invariants is a
direct consequence of the ability of characterizing dense regions of arbitrarily small size. As noticed
in [3], especially in the study of biological systems, such ability may result misleading. As a matter
of the fact, the continuous quantities used in hybrid automata are very often abstractions of large, but
discrete, quantities. In such cases, the ability of handling values with infinite precision is a model artifact
rather than a real property of the original system.
In order to discretize the continuous space, we introduce the concept of ε-sphere. Given a set S ⊆
n
R , the ε-sphere B(S, ε) is the subset of Rn of points at distance less than ε from S, i.e., B(S, ε) =
{q ∈ Rn | ∃p ∈ S(δ (p, q) < ε)}, where δ is a distance function over Rn (e.g., the standard euclidean
distance). Moreover, given a hybrid automaton H and an initial set of points I ⊆ Rd(H) , the set of points
S
reachable from the set I by H, denoted by RSetH (I), is characterized by RSetH (I) = i∈N RSetiH (I) =
limi→+∞ RSetiH (I) where RSetiH (I) is the set of points reachable from I in at most i discrete transitions.
Theorem 2 ([3]). Let T be a decidable first-order theory over reals and H be a T hybrid automaton
with bounded invariants. If there exists ε ∈ R>0 such that, for each I ⊆ Rd(H) and for each i ∈ N, either
i+1
i+1
(I) \ RSetiH (I), then
RSetH
(I) = RSetiH (I) or there exists an ai ∈ Rd(H) such that B({ai }, ε) ⊆ RSetH
j
i
there exists j ∈ N such that RSetH (I) = RSetH (I) and the reachability problem over H is decidable.

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

66

This result finds applications when it makes no sense to distinguish measurements smaller than ε.
Hence, since hybrid automata characterization is based on first-order fromulæ, it seems reasonable to
reinterpret the semantics of semi-algebraic automata by giving to each formula a semantics of “dimension
of at least ε”. In [3] the authors introduce a new class of semantics, called ε-semantics, which guarantee
the decidability of reachability in the case of hybrid automata with bounded invariants.
Definition 6. Let T be a first-order theory and let ε ∈ R>0 . For each formula ψ on T let {|ψ|}ε ⊆ Rd ,
where d is the number of free variables of ψ, be such that:
(ε) either {|ψ|}ε = 0/ or there exists p ∈ Rd such that B ({p}, ε) ⊆ {|ψ|}ε ;

(∩) {|φ ∧ ϕ|}ε ⊆ {|φ |}ε ∩ {|ϕ|}ε ;

(∪) {|φ ∨ ϕ|}ε = {|φ |}ε ∪ {|ϕ|}ε ;

(¬) {|ψ|}ε ∩ {|¬ψ|}ε = 0.
/

r∈R ψJr, XK|}ε ;

(∀) {|∀Xψ[X, X]|}ε = {|

V

r∈R ψJr, XK|}ε ;

(∃) {|∃Xψ[X, X]|}ε = {|

W

Any semantics satisfying the above conditions is said to be an ε-semantics for T .
Let us notice that no ε-semantics can over-approximate the standard semantics. Infact, for any theory
T , if {|φ |} ⊂ {|φ |}ε , where {|·|} is the semantics associated to T , then {|¬φ |} ⊃ {|¬φ |}ε due to the (¬)-rule.
Example 3 (The sphere semantics). Let T be a first-order theory over the reals and let ε > 0. The
sphere semantics of ψ, (|ψ|)ε , is defined by structural induction on ψ as follows:
def
def V
• (|t1 ◦ t2 |)ε = B ({|t1 ◦ t2 |}, ε), for ◦ ∈ {=, <};
• (|∀XψJX, XK|)ε = (| r∈R ψJr, XK|)ε ;
def

• (|ψ1 ∧ ψ2 |)ε =
def

S

B({p},ε)⊆(|ψ1 )| ε ∩(|ψ2 )| ε

• (|ψ1 ∨ ψ2 |)ε = (|ψ1 |)ε ∪ (|ψ2 |)ε ;

B ({p}, ε);

def

• (|∃XψJX, XK|)ε = (|
def

• (|¬ψ|)ε =

r∈R ψJr, XK|)ε ;

W

B({p},ε)∩(|ψ|)ε =0/ B ({p}, ε).

S

ε-semantics are exploited in the reachability algorithm defined in [3]. Intuitively, the algorithm
computes reachability incrementing the number of allowed discrete transitions at each iteration. New
reachable sets of points are computed until they became too small to be captured by the ε-semantics. In
the case of hybrid automata with bounded invariants, it always terminates. Finally, notice that replacing the ε-semantics with the standard one, the above algorithm could not terminate even with bounded
invariants, due to Zeno behaviours.
To conclude, let us notice that, by Taylor’s approximation, for any ε and any differentiable function
f (t), if we fix a time horizon th , we can approximate f (t) by a polynomial p(t) such that k f (t)− p(t)k < ε
for all t ∈ [0,th ]. Hence, there are ε-semantics that are not able to distinguish p(t) and f (t) and, according
to such ε-semantics, we can use p(t) in place of f (t) for all t ∈ [0,th ]. It follows that, adopting an
opportune ε-semantics, the Tarski’s theory (i.e., the first order theory of the inequalities over the reals) is
enough to represent any differentiable function f (t).

4

Approximated Analysis over Neural Oscillator

In this section we try to understand what happens when we apply the approximation techniques described
in Section 3 to our neural oscillator hybrid model H f˜ presented in Section 2.

4.1 ε-disturbance
The automaton H f˜ presents two main behaviours: h0, 0i is an unstable equilibrium; each starting point
different from h0, 0i reaches the limit cycle. For this reason we can prove that H f˜ is fragile. As a matter

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

67

ff˜ is a disturbance of noise level ε of H f˜, then (0, 0) in H
ff˜ reaches points different from
of fact, if H
h0, 0i, while in H f˜ it does not. In other words, if we consider backward reachability, h0, 0i is backward
ff˜ from a region R 6= {(0, 0)}, while in H f˜ it is backward reachable from {h0, 0i}. This is
reachable in H
not due to the fact that h0, 0i is unstable, but to the presence of two limit behaviours over a connected
region. We recall that in a piecewise hybrid automaton the invariants are connected disjoint regions
whose union is connected and the resets are identities, i.e., the trajectories are continuos. We use the
term limit behaviour of a hybrid automaton to denote both equilibria and limit cycles.
Theorem 3. Let H be a piecewise hybrid automaton presenting at least two different limit behaviours.
If from each point there is a unique possible evolution, then H is fragile.
The above result points out that there are systems for which it is not possible to define robust models.
In [16] a model is said to be safe only if it remains safe under small disturbances. In this terms our
result shows that there are systems which do not admit a safe model. This does not means that they
are not interesting or that we need to remove some of their behaviours. This simply means that such
systems have to be studied applying some form of disturbance or approximation. As the matter of facts,
if we study them by applying standard semantics, we define a precise border between the points reaching
different behaviours. Such precise border is not realistic.

4.2 ε-(bi)simulations
The automaton H f˜ has both an unstable equilibrium in h0, 0i and a single limit cycle encompassing the
origin of the axes. Because of that we are guaranteed that, during its evolutions, H f˜ decreases the distance
of its state from the limit cycle regardless of the starting state s 6= hv0 , h0, 0ii. Since all the differential
equations defining the dynamics of H f˜ are continuous, we can define an ε-simulation between states
whose distance from the limit cycle is smaller than ε. This enables us to both approximate the non-linear
differential System (1) with a linear differential system and reduce the complexity of the analysis.
However, if d is the maximum Euclidean distance between h0, 0i and the cycle limit, no ε-(bi)simulation, with ε < d, can relate hv0 , h0, 0ii with any other state of H f˜. As a matter of fact, the points
belonging to any neighborhood of h0, 0i eventually converge to the limit cycle. It follows that hv0 , h0, 0ii
is a singularity of the model and, despite the original system always reaches a periodic evolution, any
approximation of the proposed model by mean of ε-(bi)simulation does not manifest this property.

4.3 ε-semantics
In order to exploit ε-semantics for the study of H f˜ the first step we have to perform is that of approximating through polynomials the solutions of the differential equations defining the semantics. This can be
done, for instance, by using Taylor polynomials or more sophisticated numerical integration techniques.
We do this in the next section, where we also apply cylindrical algebraic decomposition tools to automatically prove properties of our model. Here instead we try to infer some general results about the use
of ε-semantics on H f˜.
H f˜ has an unstable equilibrium in h0, 0i. This means that h0, 0i reaches {h0, 0i}. However, when we
compute the set of points reachable from h0, 0i through an ε-semantics we get either the empty set or
a set having diameter at least ε. In particular, if our ε-semantics under-approximates the standard one
(i.e., if {|φ |} ⊃ {|φ |}ε , where {|·|} is the semantics associated to chosen theory, for each formula φ ), then
we get the empty set. Otherwise, both cases are possible, depending on the ε-semantics. For instance,
in the case of sphere semantics, no matter how we approximate the dynamics, we get that h0, 0i reaches

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

68

a set having diameter at least ε. Similarly, unless we use an under-approximation ε-semantics or some
unusual metrics, the limit cycle is transformed into a limit flow tube. This means that, if we consider a
point on the limit cycle and we compute the set of points reachable from such point, then we do not only
obtain the limit cycle, but at least a flow tube which includes the limit cycle. We will see some more
details on this in the case of sphere semantics in Section 5. All the other points, again, will reach either
the empty set or a set having diameter at least ε. The result we would expect in this second case is that
each point in the space reaches the flow tube including the limit cycle. We will see that this is true in the
case of sphere semantics, even when we use the simplest Taylor polynomials of degree one.
These considerations already allow us to point out that sphere semantics better reflects the real system
behaviour than the standard one.

5

Computing Sphere Semantics

In this section we show how sphere semantics can be computed exploiting tools for cylindrical algebraic
decomposition. In particular, we introduce a translation from sphere semantics to standard semantics.
Then, we apply the translation to study the “sphere” behaviour of our neural oscillator example.

5.1

A translation into standard semantics

If T is a first-order theory and δ is a distance definable in T , then the sphere semantics of any formula
in T is T -definable in the standardnsemantics,
o i.e., for any formula ϕ[X] ∈ T we can compute a formula
d
d
(ϕ)ε [X] ∈ T such that (|ϕ[X]|)ε = (ϕ)ε [X] for all ε ∈ R>0 .
In order to achieve this goal, we need to distinguish two kind of variables: the variables of the original
formula (named W , Wi , W and Wi ), whose evaluations follow the rules of the sphere semantics, and the
auxiliary variables (named Y , Yi , Y and Yi ) that will be introduced to encode the sphere semantics into
the standard one. From the point of view of the sphere semantics the later can seen as symbolic constants,
d . In particular, we will use them to characterize sets of
even if they will be quantified in the formula (ϕ)
ε
V
W
the form (| r∈R ϕJr, WK|)ε and (| r∈R ϕJr, WK|)ε in the standard semantics.

Definition 7 (Translation). Let T be a first-order theory over the reals, ϕ[Y, W] be any first-order
d [Y, W] by structural induction on ϕ[Y, W] itself.
formula T -definable, and ε ∈ R>0 . We define (ϕ)
ε
def
1. ((t1 ◦\
t2 )[Y, W])ε = ∃W0 ((t1 ◦ t2 )JY, W0 K ∧ δ (W0 , W) < ε), for ◦ ∈ {=, <};

def c
d ;
\
2. (φ
∨ ψ)ε = (φ
)ε ∨ (ψ)
ε

def
c) ∧ (ψ)
d )JY, W1 K) ∧ δ (W0 , W) < ε);
\
3. (φ [Y, W]
∧ ψ[Y, W])ε = ∃W0 (∀W1 (δ (W0 , W1 ) < ε _ ((φ
ε
ε
def
\
4. (∀W φ\
[Y,W, W])ε = ∃W0 (∀W1 (δ (W0 , W1 ) < ε _ ∀Y (φ JY,Y,
W1 K)ε ) ∧ δ (W0 , W) < ε);

def
\
5. (∃W φ\
[Y,W, W])ε = ∃Y (φ JY,Y,
W1 K)ε ;

def
\
6. (¬φ\
[Y, W])ε = ∃W0 (∀W1 (δ (W0 , W1 ) < ε _ ¬(φ JY,
W1 K)ε ) ∧ δ (W0 , W) < ε).

Theorem 4 (Semantics Equivalence). Let T be any first-order theory and δ be a T -definable distance.
The sphereosemantics (|.|)ε of T is T -definable in the standard semantics and, in particular, (|ϕ[X]|)ε =
n
d [X] for any formula ϕ[X] ∈ T and all ε ∈ R>0 .
(ϕ)
ε

69

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza

d [Y, W] is definable in Tarski theory, and this theory is decidable, the satiability of ϕ in (||) is
Since (ϕ)
ε
ε
decidable.
Let us notice that the application of the translation in Definition 7 to a formula, increases the evaluation complexity of such formula with respect to its untranslated version. This is mainly due to the
possible introduction of quantifier operator alternations.

5.2

Experimental Results on the Neural Oscillator

Let us consider the hybrid automaton H f˜ described in Section 2 for modeling a neural oscillator. We
intend to study its behaviour through sphere semantics, exploiting cylindrical algebraic decomposition
tools to automatically compute it.
As we noticed in Section 3, any differentiable dynamics can be exactly represented, in terms of an
opportune ε-semantics, by a semi-algebraic function. In particular, we can replace the dynamics of H f˜
by the corresponding Taylor polynomials up to a certain degree which depends on ε. In this paper, we
decided to model the automaton dynamics by using their first-degree Taylor polynomials and we obtained
the automaton H 0f˜ depicted in Figure 5. In order to keep the presentation simple, in this section we fix
the parameters as follows τ = 3, λ = 1, α = 2. Hence, the activations correspond to the axis Xi = ±2
and Xe = ±2.
Xi

v8

v7
Xe0 = Xe − ( X3e + 2)t
Xi0 = Xi − X3i ∗ t

v1

v6

Xe0 = Xe + ( X6e − 1)t
Xi0 = Xi + ( X2e − X3i + 1)t

v0

Xe0 = Xe − ( X3e + X2i + 1)t
Xi0 = Xi + ( X6i − 1)t

v2

Xe0 = Xe + ( X6e − X2i )t
Xi0 = Xi + ( X2e Xe + X6i )t

Xe0 = Xe − ( X3e + X2i − 1)t
Xi0 = Xi + ( X6i + 1)t

Xe

Xi = −2

v4

Xe0 = Xe + ( X6e + 1)t
Xi0 = Xi + ( X2e − X3i − 1)t

Xe = −2

Xi = 2

v5

v3
Xe0 = Xe − X3e t
Xi0 = Xi − ( X3i − 2)t

Xe0 = Xe − X3e t
Xi0 = Xi + (2 − X3i )t

Xe0 = Xe + (2 − X3e )t
Xi0 = Xi − X3i t

Xe = 2

Figure 5: The piecewise hybrid automaton H 0f˜ associated to the function f2 (3, 1).
A simulation of H 0f˜ is presented in Figure 4: a limit cycle is still present, but it has a diamondlike shape. We are interested in studying this limit cycle. In particular, we are interested in proving,

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

70

exploiting tools for symbolic computation, that if we apply sphere semantics, each point in the space
reaches a bounded region which includes the limit cycle. In this example our automata have unbounded
invariants, hence the termination of sphere semantics reachability algorithm is not guaranteed.
We start computing the intersections of the limit cycle with the activation regions. Consider for
instance the intersection Q0 = hxQ0 , 2i of the limit cycle with Xi = 2 and Xe > 0. We have that xQ0 is
the unique solution of the equation which describes the intersection of the diamond-like limit cycle with
Xi = 2. Similarly, consider point Q1 = h2, yQ1 i that in turn corresponds to the intersection of the limit
cycle with Xe = 2 and Xi > 0. We effectively calculated all√ these intersections by √using the computer
√17+14538 and yQ = 190√ 17+786 . The points
algebra system Maxima. So, for instance, we get xQ0 = 3526
1
495 17+2041
39 17+161
Q0 and Q1 satisfy the activation formulæ wich regulate the discrete transitions between locations v6 and
v5 , and locations v6 and v7 , respectively. Let us now consider a point P0 located on Xi = 2, but which is
such that its distance d0 from Q0 is at least 2ε, i.e., P0 = hxP0 , 2i and δ (Q0 , P0 ) = d0 > 2ε. Consider now
any point P1 on Xe = 2 resulting from the sphere semantics evaluation of the continuous evolution which
starts in P0 inside location v6 . Thus, let denote with d1 the distance between such P1 and Q1 .
If we could prove that d1 is always smaller than d0 , then we would be able to conclude that all the
points which start from a distance of at least 2ε from the limit cycle converge to a flow tube having
diameter 2ε that includes the limit cycle. Of course, to obtain such conclusion, we need to prove this
property on all locations.
We can formalize this concept through a first-order formula. We denote with r and s the straight lines
Xi = 2 and Xe = 2, respectively, and with the notation Q0 ∈ r ∩C ∩ Xe > 0 the membership of Q0 to the
intersection of straight line r with limit cycle C and positive Xe semi-plane. Moreover, with the notation
(|P0 →C P1 |)ε we denote the continuous transition from point P0 to point P1 performed exploiting sphere
semantics. Thus, our desired property can be expressed as:
∀Q0 Q1 ∀P0 P1 (Q0 ∈ r ∩C ∩ Xe > 0 ∧ Q1 ∈ s ∩C ∩ Xi > 0 ∧ P0 ∈ r ∩ Xe > 0∧


P1 ∈ s ∩ Xe > 0 ∧ δ (Q0 , P0 ) > 2ε ∧ (|P0 →C P1 |)ε ) _ δ (Q1 , P1 ) < δ (Q0 , P0 )

(5)

stating the convergence to the limit flow tube in location v6 . Such property can be easily rewritten for
each location of the hybrid automaton, changing the roles of activation border lines r and s.

5

0

5

Trajectory from (0,0)
Trajectory from (-1,6)
5

0

5

Figure 6: Two evolutions of the first degree approximation of the model proposed in Section 2.
We automatically expanded such formula by using a Perl script that implements the Definition 7 to
translate sphere semantics into the standard one. In particular, (|P0 →C P1 |)ε , in the case of location v6

71

A. Casagrande, T. Dreossi & C. Piazza
becomes
def

ψ[X] = ∃T(∃X0 (∀X1 (δ (X0 , X1 ) < ε _ (T > 0 ∧ φ JX1 , TK))) ∧ δ (X0 , X) < ε),

(6)

where
def

φ [X, T] = ∃X0 (∀X1 (δ (X0 , X1 ) < ε _ (∃X2 (Π1 JX2 , TK ∧ δ (X2 , X1 ) < ε)∧

∃X2 (Π2 JX2 , TK ∧ δ (X2 , X1 ) < ε))) ∧ δ (X0 , X) < ε),

def

(7)

def

Π1 [X0 ,Y0 , X1 ,Y1 , T] = 6 ∗ X1 = 6 ∗ X0 + (X0 − 3 ∗Y0 ) ∗ T, and Π2 [X0 ,Y0 , X1 ,Y1 , T] = 6 ∗Y1 = 6 ∗Y0 + (Y0 +
3 ∗ X0 ) ∗ T. However, we notice that, since Π1 and Π2 are closed and convex, φ can be simplified as:
φ [X, T] ≡ ∃X0 (Π1 JX0 , TK ∧ Π2 JX0 , TK ∧ δ (X0 , X) < ε).

(8)

ψ[X] ≡ ∃T(T > 0 ∧ ∃X0 (Π1 JX0 , TK ∧ Π2 JX0 , TK ∧ δ (X0 , X) < ε)).

(9)

Similarly, ψ becomes:

So we plugged this last formula in Formula 5 and used REDLOG [5] to test it. The formula turns out to be
true (the result is computed within few seconds), proving our conjectures.
Notice that we used Maxima to compute the exact coordinates of the points on the limit cycles since
that computation does not require quantifier elimination. However, we could have used REDLOG.
As far as h0, 0i is concerned it is immediate to prove through a first-order formula that it reaches
points different from itself and, hence, it reaches the limit flow tube.
Other interesting properties that automatically verified express, for instance, the fact that applying
the sphere semantics there are points that cross the limit cycle (in both directions). This is quite natural
since points closer than ε to the limit cycle get expanded and cross it.

6

Conclusions

In this paper we have modeled a neural oscillator constructing a hybrid automaton whose components
derive from the approximation of the continuous model presented in [19]. We have analyzed its behaviours considering the application of some approximation techniques for the introduction of noise, as
already advocated in [19]. In particular, we focused on the approach based on the ε-semantics.
The simulation based on the application of the ε-semantics has revealed the any point which begins
its evolution from a distance of at least 2ε from the limit cycle, converges to a flow tube which possesses
a diameter equal to 2ε and that includes the limit cycle. Due to size of the formulæ which compose
the hybrid automaton and the growth of such formalæ introduced by the translation of the ε-semantics
evaluations, a direct computation of the reachable set would have high complexity and eventually returns
results of difficult interpretation. For this reason, we have reformulated the problem in form of a closed
property which guarantees the convergence of any point towards the limit cycle of the modeled system.
During the construction of the formula that describes the convergence to the limit cycle, some steps
of simplification of the formulæ have been applied. In particular, we have reduced the complexities of
translated formulæ, relying on the convexity of the sets characterized by some of their subformulæ. An
interesting aspect to investigate is whether these simplification steps can be automatically performed.
As future work, in order to analyze the behaviour of a group of neural oscillators, we plan to combine
several hybrid automata and to study their evolutions always adopting ε-semantics.

72

Hybrid Automata and ε-Analysis on a Neural Oscillator

References
[1] R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, N. Halbwachs, T. A. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, X. Nicollin, A. Olivero, J. Sifakis &
S. Yovine (1995): The Algorithmic Analysis of Hybrid Systems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 138(1), pp. 3–34,
doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)00202-T.
[2] A. F. Atiya & P. Baldi (1989): Oscillations and Synchronizations in Neural Networks: an Exploration of the
Labeling Hypothesis. Int. J. Neural Syst. 1(2), pp. 103–124, doi:10.1142/S0129065789000025.
[3] A. Casagrande, C. Piazza & A. Policriti (2009): Discrete Semantics for Hybrid Automata. Discrete Event
Dyn. Syst. 19(4), pp. 471–493, doi:10.1007/s10626-009-0082-7.
[4] A. Casagrande, C. Piazza, A. Policriti & B. Mishra (2008): Inclusion dynamics hybrid automata. Inform.
and Comput. 206(12), pp. 1394–1424, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2008.09.001.
[5] A. Dolzmann & T. Sturm (1997): REDLOG: computer algebra meets computer logic. SIGSAM Bull. 31(2),
pp. 2–9, doi:10.1145/261320.261324.
[6] H. B. Enderton (2001): A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, II edition. Harcourt/Academic Press.
[7] M. Fränzle (1999): Analysis of Hybrid Systems: An Ounce of Realism Can Save an Infinity of States. In: Int.
Workshop on Computer, Science, and Logic (CSL 99), LNCS 1683, Springer, pp. 126–140.
[8] W. J. Freeman & C. A. Skarda (1985): Spatial EEG patterns, non-linear dynamics and perception: the
neo-Sherringtonian view. Brain Res 357(3), pp. 147–175.
[9] R. Ghosh & C. Tomlin (2001): Lateral Inhibition through Delta-Notch signaling: A Piecewise Affine Hybrid
Model. In: Proc. of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC’01), LNCS 2034, Springer, pp.
232–246, doi:10.1007/3-540-45351-2 21.
[10] A. Girard & G. J. Pappas (2007): Approximation metrics for discrete and continuous systems. IEEE Trans.
Automat. Control 52(5), pp. 782–798, doi:10.1109/TAC.2007.895849.
[11] C. M. Gray, P. Konig, A. K. Engel & W. Singer (1989): Oscillatory responses in cat visual cortex exhibit
inter-columnar synchronization which reflects global stimulus properties. Nature 338(6213), pp. 334–337,
doi:10.1038/338334a0.
[12] R. Grosu, G. Batt, F. Fenton, J. Glimm, C. Guernic, S. Smolka & E. Bartocci (2011): From Cardiac Cells to
Genetic Regulatory Networks. In: Proc. of Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11), LNCS 6806, Springer,
pp. 396–411, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1 31.
[13] T. A. Henzinger, P. W. Kopke, A. Puri & P. Varaiya (1995): What’s decidable about hybrid automata? In:
Proc. of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOCS’95), pp. 373–382, doi:10.1145/225058.225162.
[14] H. de Jong, J.-L. Gouzé, C. Hernandez, M. Page, T. Sari & J. Geiselmann (2004): Qualitative simulation
of genetic regulatory networks using piecewise-linear models. Bulletin of Math. Biology 66, pp. 301–340,
doi:10.1016/j.bulm.2003.08.010.
[15] P. Prabhakar, V. Vladimerou, M. Viswanathan & G. E. Dullerud (2009): Verifying Tolerant Systems Using
Polynomial Approximations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 30th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, RTSS
’09, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 181–190, doi:10.1109/RTSS.2009.28.
[16] S. Ratschan (2010): Safety Verification of Non-linear Hybrid Systems Is Quasi-Semidecidable. In: Theory
and Applications of Models of Computation (TAMC10), lncs 6108, springer, pp. 397–408, doi:10.1007/9783-642-13562-0 36.
[17] L. R. Silva, Y. Amitai & B. W. Connors (1991): Intrinsic oscillations of neocortex generated by layer 5
pyramidal neurons. Science 251(4992), pp. 432–5, doi:10.1126/science.1824881.
[18] M. Steriade & R. R. Llinás (1988): The functional states of the thalamus and the associated neuronal interplay. Physiological reviews 68(3), pp. 649–742.
[19] A. Tonnelier, S. Meignen, H. Bosch & J. Demongeot (1999): Synchronization and desynchronization of
neural oscillators. Neural Networks 12(9), pp. 1213 – 1228, doi:10.1016/S0893-6080(99)00068-4.

