Hierarchical Hybrid Modeling of Embedded Systems

  • R. Alur
  • T. Dang
  • J. Esposito
  • R. Fierro
  • Y. Hur
  • F. Ivančić
  • V. Kumar
  • I. Lee
  • P. Mishra
  • G. Pappas
  • O. Sokolsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2211)


This paper describes the modeling language Charon for modular design of interacting hybrid systems. The language allows specification of architectural as well as behavioral hierarchy, and discrete as well as continuous activities. The modular structure of the language is not merely syntactic, but is exploited by analysis tools, and is supported by a formal semantics with an accompanying compositional theory of refinement. We illustrate the benefits of Charon in design of embedded control software using examples from automated highways concerning vehicle coordination.


Model Check Hybrid System Operational Semantic Formal Semantic Discrete Step 
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.
    R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, N. Halbwachs, T.A. Henzinger, P. Ho, X. Nicollin, A. Olivero, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 138:3–34, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Alur, A. Das, J. Esposito, R. Fierro, Y. Hur, G. Grudic, V. Kumar, I. Lee, J. P. Ostrowski, G. Pappas, J. Southall, J. Spletzer, and C. J. Taylor. A framework and architecture for multirobot coordination. In Proc. ISER00, Seventh Intl. Symp. on Experimental Robotics, pages 289–299, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Alur, L. de Alfaro, R. Grosu, T.A. Henzinger, M. Kang, R. Majumdar, F. Mang, C.M. Kirsch, and B.Y. Wang. Mocha: A model checking tool that exploits design structure. In Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering, pages 835–836, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Alur, R. Grosu, I. Lee, and O. Sokolsky. Compositional refinement for hierarchical hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS 2034, pages 33–48, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Alur, T. Henzinger, G. Lafferriere, and G. Pappas. Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems. Proceedings ofthe IEEE, 88(7):971–984, July 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Balluchi, L. Benvenuti, M. Di Benedetto, C. Pinello, and A. Sangiovanni-Vicentelli. Automotive engine control and hybrid systems: Challenges and opportunities. Proceedings ofthe IEEE, 88(7):888–912, July 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Booch, I. Jacobson, and J. Rumbaugh. Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Chutinan and B. Krogh. Verification of polyhedral-invariant hybrid automata using polygonal flow pipe approximations. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS 1569, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Computer Aided Verification, pages 154–169, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.M. Clarke and R.P. Kurshan. Computer-aided verification. IEEE Spectrum, 33(6):61–67, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Das, D. Dill, and S. Park. Experience with predicate abstraction. In Computer Aided Verification, 11th Intl. Conf., LNCS 1633, pages 160–171, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Davis, M. Goel, C. Hylands, B. Kienhuis, E.A. Lee, J. Liu, X. Liu, L. Muliadi, S. Neuendorffer, J. Reekie, N. Smyth, J. Tsay, and Y. Xiong. Overview of the Ptolemy project. Technical Report UCB/ERL M99/37, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Engell, S. Kowalewski, C. Schulz, and O. Stursberg. Continuous-discrete interactions in chemical processing plants. Proc. ofthe IEEE, 88(7):1050–1068, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Esposito and V. Kumar. Efficient dynamic simulation of robotic systems with hierarchy. In Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 2818–2823, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Esposito, V. Kumar, and G. Pappas. Accurate event detection for simulating hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS 2034, pages 204–217, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Fierro, A. Das, V. Kumar, and J. P. Ostrowski. Hybrid control of formations of robots. Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., pages 157–162, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science ofComputer Programming, 8:231–274, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T.A. Henzinger, P. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. HyTech: the next generation. In Proc. TACAS’95, LNCS 1019, pages 41–71, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G.J. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering,23(5):279–295, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Lafferriere, G. Pappas, and S. Yovine. Symbolic reachability computation for families of linear vector fields. Journal ofSymb olic Computation, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Larsen, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. Uppaal in a nutshell. Springer Intl. Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E.A. Lee. What’s ahead for embedded software. IEEE Computer, pages 18–26, September 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    N. Lynch, R. Segala, F. Vaandrager, and H. Weinberg. Hybrid I/O automata. In Hybrid Systems III: Verification and Control, LNCS 1066, pages 496–510, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. Maler, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. From timed to hybrid systems. In Real-Time: Theory in Practice, REX Workshop, LNCS 600, pages 447–484, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. McMillan. Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Milner. A Calculus ofCommunic ating Systems. LNCS92, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Graf and H. Saidi. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In Proc. 9th Intl. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 1254, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Tomlin, G. Pappas, and S. Sastry. Conflict resolution for air traffic management: A study in multi-agent hybrid systems. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 43(4):509–521, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Alur
  • T. Dang
  • J. Esposito
  • R. Fierro
  • Y. Hur
  • F. Ivančić
  • V. Kumar
  • I. Lee
  • P. Mishra
  • G. Pappas
  • O. Sokolsky

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations