Real-Time Systems

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 278–306 | Cite as

Delay-dependent partial order reduction technique for real time systems

Article
  • 250 Downloads

Abstract

Almost all partial order reduction techniques proposed for time Petri nets (TPNs in short) are based on the notion of Partially Ordered Sets. The idea is to explore simultaneously, by relaxing some firing order constraints of persistent transitions (An enabled transition is persistent, if it cannot be disabled until its firing.), several equivalent sequences, while computing the convex hull of the abstract states reached by these equivalent sequences. However, unlike timed automata, in the TPN state space abstractions, the union of the abstract states reached by different interleavings of the same set of non conflicting transitions is not necessarily identical to their convex hull. Moreover, the convex hull over-approximation preserves neither the boundedness nor the reachability properties of the TPN. In this context, the main challenge is to establish sufficient conditions over transitions that ensure, in addition to their persistency, identity between the union and the convex hull of the abstract states reachable by their different interleavings. This paper shows how to weaken the sufficient conditions proposed in the literature, by taking into better account the structure, the marking, the static and the dynamic time parameters of the TPN.

Keywords

Time Petri nets Partial order techniques State space abstractions Contracted state class graph method 

References

  1. Belluomini W, Myers CJ (2000) Timed state space exploration using POSETs. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des Integrat Circuits 19(5):501–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengtsson J (2002) Clocks, DBMs and states in timed systems. PhD thesis, Department of Information Technology, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengtsson J, Jonsson B, Lilius J, Yi W (1998) Partial order reductions for timed systems. In: 9th international conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR). LNCS, vol 1466, pp 485–500Google Scholar
  4. Bérard B, Cassez F, Haddad S, Lime D, Roux OH (2013) The expressive power of time Petri nets. Theor Comput Sci 474:1–20MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Berthomieu B, Vernadat F (2003) State class constructions for branching analysis of time Petri nets. In: 9th International conference of tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. LNCS, vol 2619, pp 442–457Google Scholar
  6. Boucheneb H, Barkaoui K (2013) Reducing interleaving semantics redundancy in reachability analysis of time Petri nets. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst (TECS) 12(1):259–273Google Scholar
  7. Boucheneb H, Barkaoui K (2015) Stubborn sets for time Petri nets. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst (TECS) 14(1):11:1–11:25Google Scholar
  8. Boucheneb H, Hadjidj R (2006) CTL* model checking for time Petri nets. Theor Comput Sci (TCS) 353/1–3:208227MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Boucheneb H, Rakkay H (2008) A more efficient time Petri net state space abstraction useful to model checking timed linear properties. Fundam Inf 88(4):469–495MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Boucheneb H, Gardey G, Roux OH (2009) TCTL model checking of time Petri nets. Logic Comput 19(6):1509–1540MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Boucheneb H, Lime D, Roux OH (2013) On multi-enabledness in time Petri nets. In: 34th International conference on application and theory of Petri nets and other models of concurrency (ICATPN). LNCS, vol 7927, pp 130–149Google Scholar
  12. Boucheneb H, Barkaoui K, Weslati K (2014) Delay-dependent partial order reduction technique for time Petri nets. In: 12th International conference on formal modeling and analysis of timed systems. LNCS, vol 8711, pp 53–68Google Scholar
  13. Boyer M, Diaz M (2001) Multiple-enabledness of transitions in time Petri nets. In: 9th IEEE international workshop on petri nets and performance models, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  14. Chatain T, Jard C (2006) Complete finite prefixes of symbolic unfoldings of safe time Petri nets. In: 27th International conference on applications and theory of Petri nets and other models of concurrency ICATPN. LNCS, vol 4024, pp 125–145Google Scholar
  15. Delfieu D, Sogbohossou M, Traonouez LM, Revol S (2007) Parameterized study of a time Petri net. In: Cybernetics and information technologies, systems and applications: CITSA, pp 89–90Google Scholar
  16. Godefroid P (1996) An approach to the state-explosion problem. In: Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems. LNCS, vol 1032, pp 1–142Google Scholar
  17. Hakansson J, Pettersson P (2007) Partial order reduction for verification of real-time components. In: 5th international conference on formal modeling and analysis of timed systems (FORMATS). LNCS, pp 211–226Google Scholar
  18. Lilius J (1998) Efficient state space search for time Petri nets. In: MFCS workshop on concurrency algorithms and tools, ENTCS, vol 8, pp 113–133Google Scholar
  19. Lugiez D, Niebert P, Zennou S (2005) A partial order semantics approach to the clock explosion problem of timed automata. Theor Comput Sci (TCS) 345(1):2759MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Minea M (1999) Partial order reduction for model checking of timed automata. In: 10th international conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR). LNCS, vol 1664, pp 431–446Google Scholar
  21. Peled D (1993) All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Computer aided verification. LNCS, vol 697, pp 409–423Google Scholar
  22. Peled D, Wilke T (1997) Stutter invariant temporal properties are expressible without the next-time operator. Inf Process Lett 63(5):243–246MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Salah RB, Bozga M, Maler O (2006) On interleaving in timed automata. In: 17th international conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR). LNCS, vol 4137, pp 465–476Google Scholar
  24. Semenov A, Yakovlev A (1996) Verification of asynchronous circuits using time Petri net unfolding. In: 33rd annual conference on design automation (DAC), pp 59–62Google Scholar
  25. Valmari A, Hansen H (2010) Can stubborn set be optimal. In: 3st International conference on application and theory of Petri nets and concurrency (Petri nets). LNCS, vol 6128, pp. 43–62Google Scholar
  26. Yoneda T, Ryuba H (1998) CTL model checking of time Petri nets using geometric regions. EICE Trans Inf Syst E99–D(3):297–306Google Scholar
  27. Yoneda T, Schlingloff BH (1997) Efficient verification of parallel real-time systems. Formal Methods Syst Des 11(2):187–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire VeriForm, Department of Computer Engineering and Software EngineeringÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Laboratoire CEDRIC, Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParis Cedex 03France

Personalised recommendations