Advertisement

Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 451–477 | Cite as

Conflict-preserving abstraction of discrete event systems using annotated automata

  • Simon Ware
  • Robi MalikEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Discrete event systems Finite state machines Model checking Nonblocking 

References

  1. 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 384–385Google Scholar
  2. Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (1999) Introduction to discrete event systems. Kluwer, NorwellzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke Jr EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eloranta J (1991) Minimizing the number of transitions with respect to observation equivalence. BIT 31(4):397–419MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feng L, Wonham WM (2008) Supervisory control architecture for discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 53(6):1449–1461MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernandez JC (1990) An implementation of an efficient algorithm for bisimulation equivalence. Sci Comput Program 13:219–236zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 100–106Google Scholar
  9. Flordal H, Malik R (2009) Compositional verification in supervisory control. SIAM J Control Optim 48(3):1914–1938. doi: 10.1137/070695526 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar R, Shayman MA (1994) Non-blocking supervisory control of nondeterministic discrete event systems. In: Proc. American control conf, Baltimore, MD, pp 1089–1093Google Scholar
  12. Malik R, Streader D, Reeves S (2006) Conflicts and fair testing. Int J Found Comput Sci 17(4):797–813MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Series in computer science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Nuutila E (1995) Efficient transitive closure compuation in large digraphs. PhD thesis, Laboratory of Information Processing Science, Helsinki University of Technology, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Olderog ER, Hoare CAR (1986) Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Inform 23(1):9–66MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pena PN, Cury JER, Lafortune S (2009) Verification of nonconflict of supervisors using abstractions. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 54(12):2803–2815MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rensink A, Vogler W (2007) Fair testing. Inf Comput 205(2):125–198. doi: 10.1016/j.ic.2006.06.002 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 374–379Google Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations