Realizability of Schedules by Stochastic Time Petri Nets with Blocking Semantics

  • Loïc Hélouët
  • Karim KecirEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9698)


This paper considers realizability of schedules by stochastic concurrent timed systems. Schedules are high level views of desired executions represented as partial orders decorated with timing constraints, while systems are represented as elementary stochastic time Petri nets. We first consider logical realizability: a schedule is realizable by a net \(\mathcal {N}\) if it embeds in a time process of \(\mathcal {N}\) that satisfies all its constraints. However, with continuous time domains, the probability of a time process that realizes a schedule is null. We hence consider probabilistic realizability up to \(\alpha \) time units, that holds if the probability that \(\mathcal {N}\) logically realizes S with constraints enlarged by \(\alpha \) is strictly positive. Upon a sensible restriction guaranteeing time progress, logical and probabilistic realizability of a schedule can be checked on the finite set of symbolic prefixes extracted from a bounded unfolding of the net. We give a construction technique for these prefixes and show that they represent all time processes of a net occurring up to a given maximal date. We then show how to verify existence of an embedding and compute the probability of its realization.


  1. 1.
    Aghasaryan, A., Fabre, E., Benveniste, A., Boubour, R., Jard, C.: Fault detection and diagnosis in distributed systems: an approach by partially stochastic Petri nets. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 8(2), 203–231 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aura, T., Lilius, J.: Time processes for time Petri nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 136–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berthomieu, B., Diaz, M.: Modeling and verification of time dependent systems using time Petri nets. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(3), 259–273 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatain, T., Jard, C.: Symbolic diagnosis of partially observable concurrent systems. In: de Frutos-Escrig, D., Núñez, M. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3235, pp. 326–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatain, T., Jard, C.: Time supervision of concurrent systems using symbolic unfoldings of time Petri nets. In: Pettersson, P., Yi, W. (eds.) FORMATS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3829, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatain, T., Jard, C.: Complete finite prefixes of symbolic unfoldings of safe time Petri nets. In: Donatelli, S., Thiagarajan, P.S. (eds.) ICATPN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4024, pp. 125–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Synthesizing Petri nets from state-based models. In: ICCAD 1995, pp. 164–171 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Ariano, A., Pacciarelli, D., Pranzo, M.: A branch and bound algorithm for scheduling trains in a railway network. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 183(2), 643–657 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Ariano, A., Pranzo, M., Hansen, I.A.: Conflict resolution and train speed coordination for solving real-time timetable perturbations. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 8(2), 208–222 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dousson, C.: Extending and unifying chronicle representation with event counters. In: ECAI 2002, pp. 257–261 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doyen, L., Geeraerts, G., Raskin, J.-F., Reichert, J.: Realizability of real-time logics. In: Ouaknine, J., Vaandrager, F.W. (eds.) FORMATS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5813, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esparza, J., Römer, S., Vogler, W.: An improvement of McMillan’s unfolding algorithm. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 20(3), 285–310 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horváth, A., Paolieri, M., Ridi, L., Vicario, E.: Transient analysis of non-Markovian models using stochastic state classes. Perform. Eval. 69(7), 315–335 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krichen, M., Tripakis, S.: Conformance testing for real-time systems. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 34(3), 238–304 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lime, D., Roux, O.H.: Model checking of time Petri nets using the state class timed automaton. J. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 16(2), 179–205 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillan, K.L.: A technique of state space search based on unfolding. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 6(1), 45–65 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubinstein, R.Y., Kroese, D.P.: Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method, 2nd edn. Wiley, London (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Semenov, A.L. Yakovlev, A.: Verification of asynchronous circuits using time Petri net unfolding. In: DAC, pp. 59–62 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (, which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA RennesRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations