A Classification of Symbolic Transition Systems

  • Thomas A. Henzinger
  • Rupak Majumdar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1770)

Abstract

We define five increasingly comprehensive classes of infinite-state systems, called STS1–5, whose state spaces have finitary structure. For four of these classes, we provide examples from hybrid systems.

STS1 These are the systems with finite bisimilarity quotients. They can be analyzed symbolically by (1) iterating the predecessor and boolean operations starting from a finite set of observable state sets, and (2) terminating when no new state sets are generated. This enables model checking of the μ-calculus.

STS2 These are the systems with finite similarity quotients. They can be analyzed symbolically by iterating the predecessor and positive boolean operations. This enables model checking of the existential and universal fragments of the μ-calculus.

STS3 These are the systems with finite trace-equivalence quotients. They can be analyzed symbolically by iterating the predecessor operation and a restricted form of positive boolean operations (intersection is restricted to intersection with observables). This enables model checking of linear temporal logic.

STS4 These are the systems with finite distance-equivalence quotients (two states are equivalent if for every distance d, the same observables can be reached in d transitions). The systems in this class can be analyzed symbolically by iterating the predecessor operation and terminating when no new state sets are generated. This enables model checking of the existential conjunction-free and universal disjunction-free fragments of the μ-calculus.

STS5 These are the systems with finite bounded-reachability quotients (two states are equivalent if for every distance d, the same observables can be reached in d or fewer transitions). The systems in this class can be analyzed symbolically by iterating the predecessor operation and terminating when no new states are encountered. This enables model checking of reachability properties.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ACH+95]
    R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, N. Halbwachs, T.A. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, X. Nicollin, A. Olivero, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 138:3–34, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [AČJT96]
    P. A. Abdulla, K. Čerāns, B. Jonsson, and Y.-K. Tsay. General decidability theorems for infinite-state systems. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 313–321. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [AD94]
    R. Alur and D.L. Dill. A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126:183–235, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [AH98]
    R. Alur and T.A. Henzinger. Computer-aided Verification: An Introduction to Model Building and Model Checking for Concurrent Systems. Draft, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [AHH96]
    R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger, and P.-H. Ho. Automatic symbolic verification of embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22:181–201, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [AJ98]
    P. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Verifying networks of timed automata. In TACAS 98: Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1384, pages 298–312. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [BFH90]
    A. Bouajjani, J.-C. Fernandez, and N. Halbwachs. Minimal model generation. In CAV 90: Computer-aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 531, pages 197–203. Springer-Verlag, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Dam94]
    M. Dam. CTL* and ECTL* as fragments of the modal μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 126:77–96, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [EJS93]
    E.A. Emerson, C.S. Jutla, and A.P. Sistla. On model checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In CAV 93: Computer-aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 697, pages 385–396. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [FS98]
    A. Finkel and Ph. Schnoebelen. Well-structured Transition Systems Everywhere. Technical Report LSV-98-4, Laboratoire Spécification et Vérification, ENS Cachan, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [Hen95]
    T.A. Henzinger. Hybrid automata with finite bisimulations. In ICALP 95: Automata, Languages, and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 944, pages 324–335. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [Hen96]
    T.A. Henzinger. The theory of hybrid automata. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 278–292. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [HHK95]
    M.R. Henzinger, T.A. Henzinger, and P.W. Kopke. Computing simulations on finite and infinite graphs. In Proceedings of the 36rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 453–462. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [HHWT95]
    T.A. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. HyTech: the next generation. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Real-time Systems Symposium, pages 56–65. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [HK96]
    T.A. Henzinger and P.W. Kopke. State equivalences for rectangular hybrid automata. In CONCUR 96: Concurrency Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1119, pages 530–545. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [HKPV98]
    T.A. Henzinger, P.W. Kopke, A. Puri, and P. Varaiya. What’s decidable about hybrid automata? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 57:94–124, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [HM99]
    T.A. Henzinger and R. Majumdar. Symbolic model checking for rectangular hybrid systems. Submitted for publication, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. [KS90]
    P.C. Kanellakis and S.A. Smolka. CCS expressions, finite-state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Information and Computation, 86:43–68, 1990.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [vG90]
    R.J. van Glabbeek. Comparative Concurrency Semantics and Refinement of Actions. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Henzinger
    • 1
  • Rupak Majumdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations