Programming-Logic Analysis of Fault Tolerance: Expected Performance of Self-stabilisation

  • C. C. Morgan
  • A. K. McIver
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4157)


Formal proofs of functional correctness and rigorous analyses of fault tolerance have, traditionally, been separate processes. In the former a programming logic (proof) or computational model (model checking) is used to establish that all the system’s behaviours satisfy some (specification) criteria. In the latter, techniques derived from engineering are used to determine quantitative properties such as probability of failure (given failure of some component) or expected performance (an average measure of execution time, for example).

To combine the formality and the rigour requires a quantitative approach within which functional correctness can be embedded. Programming logics for probability are capable in principle of doing so, and in this article we illustrate the use of the probabilistic guarded-command language (pGCL) and its logic for that purpose.

We take self-stabilisation as an example of fault tolerance, and present program-logical techniques for determining, on the one hand, that termination occurs with probability one and, on the other, the the expected time to termination is bounded above by some value. An interesting technical novelty required for this is the recognition of both “angelic” and “demonic” refinement, reflecting our simultaneous interest in both upper- and lower bounds.


Fault Tolerance Operational Semantic Probabilistic Choice Probabilistic Program Functional Correctness 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brassard, G., Bratley, P.: Fundamentals of Algorithmics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Celiku, O., McIver, A.: Compositional specification and analysis of cost-based properties in probabilistic programs. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Hayes, I.J., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) FM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3582, pp. 107–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hallerstede, S., Butler, M.: Performance analysis of probabilistic action systems. Formal Aspects of Computing 16(4), 313–331 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herman, T.: Probabilistic self-stabilization. Inf. Proc. Lett. 35(2), 63–67 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillston, J.: A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoang, T.S., Jin, Z., Robinson, K., McIver, A.K., Morgan, C.: Development via refinement in probabilistic B — foundation and case study. In: Treharne, H., King, S., Henson, M.C., Schneider, S. (eds.) ZB 2005. LNCS, vol. 3455, pp. 355–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katoen, J.-P., Meyer-Kayser, J., Siegle, M.: A Markov-chain model checker. In: Schwartzbach, M.I., Graf, S. (eds.) ETAPS 2000 and TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, pp. 347–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McIver, A.K., Morgan, C.C., Sanders, J.W., Seidel, K.: Probabilistic Systems Group: Collected reports,
  10. 10.
    McIver, A., Morgan, C.: Annabelle McIver and Carroll Morgan. In: Technical Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morgan, C.C., McIver, A.K.: pGCL: Formal reasoning for random algorithms. South African Computer Journal 22 (March 1999), available at: [9, key pGCL] Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morgan, C.C., McIver, A.K., Seidel, K.: Probabilistic predicate transformers. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 18(3), 325–353 (1996), Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    PRISM. Probabilistic symbolic model checker,
  14. 14.
    Rabin, M.O.: The choice-coordination problem. Acta Informatica 17(2), 121–134 (1982)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sere, K., Troubitsyna, E.: Probabilities in action systems. In: Proc. of the 8th Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stirzaker, D.: Elementary Probability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. C. Morgan
    • 1
  • A. K. McIver
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. Comp. Sci. and Eng.University of NSWSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Dept. Computer ScienceMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations