Qualitative Action Systems

  • Bernhard K. Aichernig
  • Harald Brandl
  • Willibald Krenn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5885)


An extension to action systems is presented facilitating the modeling of continuous behavior in the discrete domain. The original action system formalism has been developed by Back et al. in order to describe parallel and distributed computations of discrete systems, i.e. systems with discrete state space and discrete control. In order to cope with hybrid systems, i.e. systems with continuous evolution and discrete control, two extensions have been proposed: hybrid action systems and continuous action systems. Both use differential equations (relations) to describe continuous evolution. Our version of action systems takes an alternative approach by adding a level of abstraction: continuous behavior is modeled by Qualitative Differential Equations that are the preferred choice when it comes to specifying abstract and possibly non-deterministic requirements of continuous behavior. Because their solutions are transition systems, all evolutions in our qualitative action systems are discrete.

Based on hybrid action systems, we develop a new theory of qualitative action systems and discuss how we have applied such models in the context of automated test-case generation for hybrid systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kuipers, B.: Qualitative Reasoning: Modeling and Simulation with Incomplete Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Back, R.J., Kurki-Suonio, R.: Decentralization of process nets with centralized control. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 131–142. ACM, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Back, R.J., Sere, K.: Stepwise refinement of action systems. Structured Programming 12, 17–30 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Back, R.J., von Wright, J.: Trace refinement of action systems. In: Jonsson, B., Parrow, J. (eds.) CONCUR 1994. LNCS, vol. 836, pp. 367–384. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rönkkö, M., Ravn, A.P., Sere, K.: Hybrid action systems. Theoretical Computer Science 290, 937–973 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Back, R.J., Petre, L., Porres, I.: Continuous action systems as a model for hybrid systems. Nordic Journal of Computing 8(1), 2–21 (2001)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schaefer, P.: Analytic solution of qualitative differential equations. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rönkkö, M., Sere, K.: Refinement and continuous behaviour. In: Vaandrager, F.W., van Schuppen, J.H. (eds.) HSCC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1569, pp. 223–237. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Back, R.J.J., Akademi, A., Wright, J.V.: Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aichernig, B.K., Brandl, H., Wotawa, F.: Conformance testing of hybrid systems with qualitative reasoning models. In: Finkbeiner, B., Gurevich, Y., Petrenko, A.K. (eds.) Model-Based Testing, MBT 2009, pp. 45–59 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cavalcanti, A., Gaudel, M.C.: Testing for refinement in CSP. In: Butler, M., Hinchey, M.G., Larrondo-Petrie, M.M. (eds.) ICFEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4789, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajeev, A., Henzinger, T.A., Lafferriere, G., Pappas, G.J.: Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 88(7), 971–983 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tiwari, A.: Abstractions for hybrid systems. Formal Methods in Systems Design 32, 57–83 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oleg, S., Hyoung Seok, H.: Qualitative modeling of hybrid systems. In: Proc. of the Montreal Workshop (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brandl, H., Fraser, G., Wotawa, F.: QR-model based testing. In: AST’08: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on automation of software test, pp. 17–20. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brandl, H., Fraser, G., Wotawa, F.: Coverage-based testing using qualitative reasoning models. In: Proc. of SEKE 2008, Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School, pp. 393–398 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard K. Aichernig
    • 1
  • Harald Brandl
    • 1
  • Willibald Krenn
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software TechnologyGraz University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations