Acta Informatica

, Volume 44, Issue 3–4, pp 249–288 | Cite as

Well-structured languages

  • Gilles Geeraerts
  • Jean-François Raskin
  • Laurent Van Begin
Original article

Abstract

This paper introduces the notion of well-structured language. A well-structured language can be defined by a labelled well-structured transition system, equipped with an upward-closed set of accepting states. That peculiar class of transition systems has been extensively studied in the field of computer-aided verification, where it has direct an important applications. Petri nets, and their monotonic extensions (like Petri nets with non-blocking arcs or Petri nets with transfer arcs), for instance, are special subclasses of well-structured transition systems. We show that the class of well-structured languages enjoy several important closure properties. We propose several pumping lemmata that are applicable respectively to the whole class of well-structured languages and to the classes of languages recognized by Petri nets or Petri nets with non-blocking arcs. These pumping lemmata allow us to characterize the limits in the expressiveness of these classes of language. Furthermore, we exploit the pumping lemmata to strictly separate the expressive power of Petri nets, Petri nets with non-blocking arcs and Petri nets with transfer arcs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A., Cerans, K., Jonsson, B., Tsay, Y.-K.: General decidability theorems for infinite-state systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’96),pp. 313–321. IEEE Computer Society Press (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulla, P.A., Bouajjani, A., Jonsson, B.: On-the-fly analysis of systems with unbounded, lossy FIFO channels. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’98), vol. 1427 of LNCS, pp. 305–318. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdulla, P., Annichini, A., Bouajjani, A.: Symbolic verification of lossy channel systems: application to the bounded retransmission protocol. In: Proceedings 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’99), number 1579 in LNCS,pp. 208–222. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciardo, G.: Petri nets with marking-dependent arc multiplicity: properties and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets (ICATPN 94), vol. 815 of LNCS, pp. 179–198. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delzanno, G.: Automatic verification of parameterized cache coherence protocols. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2000), vol. 1855 of LNCS, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Delzanno, G., Raskin, J.-F., Van Begin, L.: Towards the automated verification of multithreaded Java programs. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2002), vol. 2280 of LNCS, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Dickson L.E. (1913) Finiteness of the odd perfect and primitive abundant numbers with a distinct prime factors. Am. J. Math. 35, 413–422 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S.: On model checking for non-deterministic infinite-state systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS ’98), PP. 70–80. IEEE Computer Society Press (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkel, A., Geeraerts, G., Raskin, J.-F., Van Begin, L.: On the omega-language expressive power of extended Petri nets. In: Proceedings of EXPRESS’04, 11th International Workshop on Expressiveness in Concurrency, London, Great Britain, vol. 128(2) of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 87–101. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkel A. and Schnoebelen P. (2001). Well-structured transition systems everywhere!. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 256(1-2): 63–92 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    German S.M. and Sistla A.P. (1992). Reasoning about systems with many processes. J. ACM 39(3): 675–735 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ginsburg S. (1975). Algebraic and automata-theoretic properties of formal languages. Elsevier, Amsterdam MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopcroft J., Motwani R. and Ullman J. (2001). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jantzen M. (1986). Language theory of Petri nets. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W. and Rozenberg, G. (eds) Proceedings of Advances in Petri Nets 1986, vol. 254 of LNCS., pp 397–412. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minsky N.M. (1967). Finite and infinite machines. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peterson J.L. (1981). Petri net theory and the modeling of systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raskin, J.-F., Van Begin, L.: Petri nets with non-blocking arcs are difficult to analyse. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Verification of Infinite-state Systems (INFINITY 2003), vol. 96(1) of ENTCS. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salomaa A. (1973). Formal languages. Academic, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salomaa A. (1985). Computation and automata, vol. 25 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Van Begin, L.: Efficient verification of counting abstractions for parametric systems. PhD thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Geeraerts
    • 1
  • Jean-François Raskin
    • 1
  • Laurent Van Begin
    • 1
  1. 1.Département d’InformatiqueUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations