Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict-preserving abstraction of discrete event systems using annotated automata

  • Published:
Discrete Event Dynamic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes to enhance compositional verification of the nonblocking property of discrete event systems by introducing annotated automata. Annotations store nondeterministic branching information, which would otherwise be stored in extra states and transitions. This succinct representation makes it easier to simplify automata and enables new efficient means of abstraction, reducing the size of automata to be composed and thus the size of the synchronous product state space encountered in verification. The abstractions proposed are of polynomial complexity, and they have been successfully applied to model check the nonblocking property of the same set of large-scale industrial examples as used in related work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Åkesson K, Fabian M, Flordal H, Malik R (2006) Supremica—an integrated environment for verification, synthesis and simulation of discrete event systems. In: Proc. 8th int. workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’06, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 384–385

  • Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Kluwer, Norwell

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke Jr EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Nicola R, Hennessy MCB (1984) Testing equivalences for processes. Theor Comput Sci 34(1–2):83–133. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(84)90113-0

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eloranta J (1991) Minimizing the number of transitions with respect to observation equivalence. BIT 31(4):397–419

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Feng L, Wonham WM (2008) Supervisory control architecture for discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 53(6):1449–1461

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez JC (1990) An implementation of an efficient algorithm for bisimulation equivalence. Sci Comput Program 13:219–236

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Flordal H, Malik R (2006) Modular nonblocking verification using conflict equivalence. In: Proc. 8th int. workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’06, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 100–106

  • Flordal H, Malik R (2009) Compositional verification in supervisory control. SIAM J Control Optim 48(3):1914–1938. doi:10.1137/070695526

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Shayman MA (1994) Non-blocking supervisory control of nondeterministic discrete event systems. In: Proc. American control conf, Baltimore, MD, pp 1089–1093

  • Malik R, Streader D, Reeves S (2006) Conflicts and fair testing. Int J Found Comput Sci 17(4):797–813

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Series in computer science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nuutila E (1995) Efficient transitive closure compuation in large digraphs. PhD thesis, Laboratory of Information Processing Science, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

  • Olderog ER, Hoare CAR (1986) Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Inform 23(1):9–66

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pena PN, Cury JER, Lafortune S (2009) Verification of nonconflict of supervisors using abstractions. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 54(12):2803–2815

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensink A, Vogler W (2007) Fair testing. Inf Comput 205(2):125–198. doi:10.1016/j.ic.2006.06.002

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Su R, van Schuppen JH, Rooda JE, Hofkamp AT (2010) Nonconflict check by using sequential automaton abstractions based on weak observation equivalence. Automatica 46(6):968–978. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2010.02.025

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ware S, Malik R (2010) Compositional nonblocking verification using annotated automata. In: Proc. 10th int. workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’10, Berlin, Germany, pp 374–379

  • Ware S, Malik R (2011) A state-based characterisation of the conflict preorder. In: Proc. 10th int. workshop on the foundations of coordination languages and software architectures, FOCLASA 2011, Aachen, Germany, pp 34–48. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.58.3

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Simon Ware & Robi Malik

Authors
  1. Simon Ware
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robi Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robi Malik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ware, S., Malik, R. Conflict-preserving abstraction of discrete event systems using annotated automata. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 22, 451–477 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10626-012-0133-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10626-012-0133-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation