Towards the formal design of self-stabilizing distributed algorithms

  • P. J. A. Lentfert
  • S. D. Swierstra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 665)


This article introduces two new logical operators in UNITY. These operators are used to present a general scheme to specify the problem a self-stabilizing algorithm is assumed to solve. Furthermore, a general solution strategy is specified for a class of problems. The theory is illustrated by an example.


Span Tree Finite Time Temporal Logic Logical Operator Solution Strategy 
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.
    A. Arora and M.G. Gouda. Distributed reset (extended abstract). In Proc. of 10th Conf. on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 316–331. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Awerbuch, B. Patt-Shamir, and G. Varghese. Self-stabilization by local checking and correction. In Proc. of 32'nd IEEE Symp. on Foundations on Computer Science, October 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design — A Foundation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.W. Dijkstra. Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control. Communications of the ACM, 17(11):643–644, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Katz and K.J. Perry. Self-stabilizing extensions for message-passing systems. In Proc. of the Ninth Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 91–101, Quebec City, August 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H.S.M. Kruijer. Self-stabilization (in spite of distributed control) in tree structured systems. Information Processing Letters, 8(2):91–95, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.J.A. Lentfert and S.D. Swierstra. Distributed maximum maintenance on hierarchically divided graphs. Formal Aspects of Computing, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.J.A. Lentfert and S.D. Swierstra. Towards the formal design of self-stabilizing distributed algorithms. Technical Report RUU-CS-92-25, Utrecht University, July 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.J.A. Lentfert, A.H. Uittenbogaard, S.D. Swierstra, and G. Tel. Distributed hierarchical routing. Technical Report RUU-CS-89-5, Utrecht University, March 1989. Also in: P.M.G. Apers et al. (Eds.). Proc. CSN89. Utrecht, November 9–10, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems, volume 1. Springer Verlag, to appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.M. McQuillan, I. Richer, and E.C. Rosen. The new routing algorithm for the arpanet. IEEE Trans. on Communications, com-28(5):711–719, May 1980.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B.A. Sanders. Stepwise refinement of mixed specifications of concurrent programs. In M. Broy and C.B. Jones, editors, Proceedings IFIP Working Conf. on Programming and Methods, pages 1–25. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland), May 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.A. Sanders. Eliminating the substitution axiom from UNITY logic. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3(2):189–205, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.D. Tajibnapis. A correctness proof of a topology information maintenance protocol for a distributed computer network. Computer Systems, 20(7):477–485, July 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. A. Lentfert
    • 1
  • S. D. Swierstra
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityTB UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations