Advertisement

Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 33–84 | Cite as

A framework for compositional nonblocking verification of extended finite-state machines

  • Sahar MohajeraniEmail author
  • Robi Malik
  • Martin Fabian
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for compositional nonblocking verification of discrete event systems modelled as extended finite-state machines (EFSM). Previous results are improved to consider general conflict-equivalence based abstractions of EFSMs communicating both via shared variables and events. Performance issues resulting from the conversion of EFSM systems to finite-state machine systems are avoided by operating directly on EFSMs, deferring the unfolding of variables into state machines as long as possible. Several additional methods to abstract EFSMs and remove events are also presented. The proposed algorithm has been implemented in the discrete event systems tool Supremica, and the paper presents experimental results for several large EFSM models that can be verified faster than by previously used methods.

Keywords

Extended finite-state machines Model checking Nonblocking Compositional verification Supervisory control theory 

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: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’06. IEEE, Ann Arbor, pp 384–385Google Scholar
  2. Aloul FA, Markov IL, Sakallah KA (2003) FORCE: A fast & easy-to-implement variable-ordering heuristic. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM great lakes symposium on VLSI, pp. 116–119. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Baier C, Katoen JP (2008) Principles of model checking. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryant RE (1992) Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Comput Surv 24(3):293–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Lin F (2000) Modeling of discrete event systems using finite state machines with parameters. In: Proceedings of 2000 IEEE international conference on control applications (CCA). Anchorage, Alaska, pp 941–946Google Scholar
  6. Cheng KT, Krishnakumar AS (1993) Automatic functional test generation using the extended finite state machine model.. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM/IEEE design automation conference. doi: 10.1145/157485.164585, Dallas, pp 86–91
  7. Dams D, Grumberg O, Gerth R (1994) Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: Abstractions preserving ∀CTL , ∃CTL and CTL . In: Olderog ER (ed) Proceedings of IFIP WG2.1/WG2.2/WG2.3 working conference on programming concepts, methods and calculi (PROCOMET), IFIP transactions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 573–592Google Scholar
  8. Fabian M, Fei Z, Miremadi S, Lennartson B, Åkesson K (2014). In: Campos J, Seatzu C, Xie X (eds) Supervisory control of manufacturing systems using extended finite automata, CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Flordal H, Malik R (2009) Compositional verification in supervisory control. SIAM J Control Optim 48(3):1914–1938. doi: 10.1137/070695526 CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Gohari P, Wonham WM (2000) On the complexity of supervisory control design in the RW framework. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30(5):643–652. doi: 10.1109/3477.875441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graf S, Steffen B (1990) Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: Proceedings of the 1990 workshop on computer-aided verification, LNCS, vol 531. Springer, NJ, pp 186–196Google Scholar
  12. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  13. Huth M, Ryan M (2004) Logic in computer science. University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Malik R, Leduc R (2013) Compositional nonblocking verification using generalised nonblocking abstractions. IEEE Trans Autom Control 58(8):1–13. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2248255 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Malik R, Mühlfeld R (2003) A case study in verification of UML statecharts: the PROFIsafe protocol. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9(2):138–151Google Scholar
  16. Malik R, Streader D, Reeves S (2006) Conflicts and fair testing. Int J Found Comput Sci 17(4):797–813. doi: 10.1142/S012905410600411X CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. McMillan KL (1993) Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Series in Computer Science. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohajerani S, Malik R, Fabian M (2013) Compositional nonblocking verification for extended finite-state automata using partial unfolding. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automation science and engineering, CASE. Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp 942–947Google Scholar
  20. Mohajerani S, Malik R, Fabian M (2013) Partial unfolding for compositional nonblocking verification of extended finite-state machines. Working Paper 01/2013, Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato. Hamilton, New Zealand. http://hdl.handle.net/10289/7140 Google Scholar
  21. Mohajerani S, Malik R, Fabian M (2014) An algorithm for compositional nonblocking verification of extended finite-state machines. In: Proceedings of the 12th international workshop on discrete event systems, WODES’14, pp. 376–382. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  22. Parsaeian S (2014) Implementation of a framework for restart after unforeseen errors in manufacturing systems. Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  23. Pena PN, Cury JER, Lafortune S (2009) Verification of nonconflict of supervisors using abstractions. IEEE Trans Autom Control 54(12):2803–2815CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sköldstam M, Åkesson K, Fabian M (2007) Modeling of discrete event systems using finite automata with variables. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control, CDC ’07, pp. 3387– 3392Google Scholar
  26. 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 CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Teixeira M, Malik R, Cury JER, de Queiroz MH (2013) Variable abstraction and approximations in supervisory control synthesis. In: 2013 American Control Conference, pp. 120–125. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Vahidi A (2004) Efficient analysis of discrete event systems—supervisor synthesis with binary decision diagrams. Ph.D. thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  29. Wonham WM Supervisory control of discrete-event systems. http://www.control.utoronto.edu/
  30. Zhaoa J, Chen YL, Chen Z, Lin F, Wang C, Zhang H (2012) Modeling and control of discrete event systems using finite state machines with variables and their applications in power grids. Syst Control Lett 61(1):212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vehicle Dynamics and Active Safety CenterVolvo Cars CorporationGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Signals and SystemsChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations