Advertisement

motor:The modest Tool Environment

  • Henrik Bohnenkamp
  • Holger Hermanns
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4424)

Abstract

The modest Tool Environment (motor) is a tool to facilitate the transformation, analysis and validation of modest models. modest is a modelling language to describe stochastic real-time systems. motor implements the formal semantics of modest and is designed to transform and abstract modest specifications such that analysis can be carried out by third-party tools. For the time being, a fragment of modest can be model-checked using Cadp. The main analytical workhorse behind motor is discrete-event simulation, which is provided by the Möbius performance evaluation environment. We are experimenting with prototypical connections to the real-time model checker Uppaal.

Keywords

Label Transition System Structural Operational Semantic Stochastic Automaton Train Control System Performance Evaluation Environment 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernardo, M., et al.: TwoTowers: A tool integrating functional and performance analysis of concurrent systems. In: Proc. FORTE/PSTV 1998, pp. 457–467. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohnenkamp, H., et al.: Modest: A compositional modeling formalism for real-time and stochastic systems. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 32(10), 812–830 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohnenkamp, H., et al.: Are you still there? — A lightweight algorithm to monitor node presence in self-configuring networks. In: Proc. DSN 2005, June 2005, pp. 704–709. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohnenkamp, H., et al.: The MoDeST modeling tool and its implementation. In: Kemper, P., Sanders, W.H. (eds.) TOOLS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2794, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohnenkamp, H., et al.: Synthesis and stochastic assessment of schedules for lacquer production. In: Proc. QEST ’04, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavin, D., Sasson, Y., Schiper, A.: On the accuracy of MANET simulators. In: ACM Workshop On Principles Of Mobile Computing, pp. 38–43 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly, D., et al.: Möbius: An extensible tool for performance and dependability modeling. In: Haverkort, B.R., Bohnenkamp, H.C., Smith, C.U. (eds.) TOOLS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1786, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Argenio, P.R., Katoen, J.-P.: A theory of stochastic systems. Part I. Stochastic automata. Inf. & Comp. 203, 1–38 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deavours, D.D., Sanders, W.H.: An efficient well-specified check. In: Proceedings PNPM ’99, pp. 124–133. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CAESAR: An Open Software Architecture for Verification, Simulation, and Testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hermanns, H., Jansen, D.N., Usenko, Y.S.: From StoCharts to MoDeST: a comparative reliability analysis of train radio communications. In: Proc. WOSP ’05, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Probabilistic symbolic model checking with PRISM. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal in a Nutshell. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1–2), 134–152 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Bohnenkamp
    • 1
  • Holger Hermanns
    • 2
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Software Modeling and Verfication Group, Informatik 2 RWTH Aachen University, 52056 AachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Saarland University, D-66123 SaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Formal Methods and Tools Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations