CONCUR 1999: CONCUR’99 Concurrency Theory pp 431-446 | Cite as

Partial Order Reduction for Model Checking of Timed Automata

  • Marius Minea
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1664)

Abstract

The paper presents a partial order reduction method applicable to networks of timed automata. The advantage of the method is that it reduces both the number of explored control states and the number of generated time zones. The approach is based on a local-time semantics for networks of timed automata defined by Bengtsson et al. [1998], and used originally for local reachability analysis. In this semantics, each component automaton executes asynchronously, in its own local time scale, which is tracked by an auxiliary reference clock. On communication transitions, the automata synchronize their time scales. We show how this model can be used to perform model checking for an extension of linear temporal logic, which can express timing relations between events. We also show how for a class of timed automata, the local-time model can be implemented using difference bound matrices without any space penalty, despite the need to represent local time. Furthermore, we analyze the dependence relation between transitions in the new model and give practical conditions for selecting a reduced set of transitions.

Keywords

Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Execution Trace Visible Transition Time Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Alur and D. Dill. Automata for modeling real-time systems. In Automata, Languages, and Programming. 17th Int. Colloquium Proc., LNCS v. 443, pp. 322–35, Coventry, UK, July 1990. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bengtsson, B. Jonsson, J. Lilius, and Wang Yi. Partial order reductions for timed systems. In CONCUR’98: Concurrency Theory. 8th Int. Conf. Proc., LNCS v. 1466, pp. 485–500, Nice, France, September 1998. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Belluomini and C. J. Myers. Verification of timed systems using POSETs. In Computer Aided Verification. 10th Int. Conf., CAV’98. Proc., LNCS v. 1427, pp. 403–15, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 1998. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Computer Aided Verification. 2nd Int. Conf., CAV’90. Proc., LNCS v. 531, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, June 1990. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. Logic of Programs: Workshop, Yorktown Heights, NY, LNCS v. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, May 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Dams, R. Gerth, B. Knaack, and R. Kuiper. Partial-order reduction techniques for real-time model checking. In Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, pp. 157–69, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. L. Dill. Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. Proc. Int. Workshop Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems., LNCS v. 407, pp. 197–212, Grenoble, June 1989. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Godefroid. Using partial orders to improve automatic verification methods. In [4], pp. 176–85.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. A. Henzinger, X. Nicollin, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. In Proc. Seventh Ann. IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 394–406, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, June 1992. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Lilius. Efficient state space search for time Petri nets. In Proc. MFCS’98 Workshop on Concurrency, Brno, Czech Republic, August 1998. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. G. Larsen, P. Pettersson, and Wang Yi. Compositional and symbolic modelcheking of real-time systems. In Proc. 16th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symp., pp. 76–87, Pisa, Italy, Dec. 1995. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Pagani. Partial orders and verification of real-time systems. In Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems. 4th Int. Symp. Proc., LNCS v. 1135, pp. 327–46, Uppsala, September 1996. Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Pagani. Ordres partiels pour la vérification de systémes temps réel (Partial orders for verification of real-time systems). PhD thesis, Centre d’études et de Recherches de Toulouse, September 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Peled. All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In Computer Aided Verification. 5th Int. Conf., CAV’93. Proc., LNCS v. 697, pp. 409–23, Elounda, Greece, June 1993. Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Valmari. A stubborn attack on state explosion. In [4], pp. 156–65.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In Proc. Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 332–44, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 1986. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Wong-Toi. Symbolic Approximations for Verifying Real-Time Systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, December 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Yoneda and B.-H. Schlingloff. Efficient verification of parallel real-time systems. Formal Methods in System Design, 11(2):197–215, August 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Minea
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations