Supervisory Control of Discrete-Event Systems via IC3

  • Mohammad Reza Shoaei
  • Laura Kovács
  • Bengt Lennartson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8855)

Abstract

The IC3 algorithm has proven to be an effective SAT-based safety model checker. It has been generalized to other frameworks such as SMT and applied very successfully to hardware and software model checking. In this paper, we present a novel technique for the supervisory control of discrete-event systems with infinite state space via IC3. We introduce an algorithm for synthesizing maximally permissive controllers using a generalized IC3 to find (if any exists) a weakest inductive invariant predicate which holds in the initial state, is maintained as the system evolves, and implies safety and control properties. To this end, we use a variation of IC3, called Tree-IC3, as a bug finder to solve the supervisory predicate control problem by iteratively reporting all feasible counterexample traces using a tree-like search, while controlling the system to avoid them. The maximally permissiveness is achieved by finding the weakest of such controllers that is invariant under safety and control properties. Experimental results demonstrate the great potential of using IC3 technique for the purpose of the supervisory control problems.

Keywords

Discrete-event systems Supervisory control theory Incremental inductive verification IC3 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Åkesson, K., Fabian, M., Flordal, H., Malik, R.: Supremica - An integrated environment for verification, synthesis and simulation of discrete event systems. In: 8th Int. Work. Discret. Event Syst., pp. 384–385. Ann Arbor, MI (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without bDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradley, A.R.: SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cassandras, C.G., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems, 2nd edn. Springer US, Boston (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Y.L., Lin, F.: Modeling of discrete event systems using finite state machines with parameters. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl. Conf. Proc., pp. 941–946 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cimatti, A., Griggio, A.: Software model checking via IC3. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 277–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claessen, K., Een, N., Sheeran, M., Sörensson, N., Voronov, A., Åkesson, K.: SAT-Solving in Practice, with a Tutorial Example from Supervisory Control. Discret. Event Dyn. Syst. 19(4), 495–524 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Een, N., Mishchenko, A., Brayton, R.: Efficient implementation of property directed reachability. In: Form. Methods Comput. Des., pp. 125–134 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fei, Z., Miremadi, S., Åkesson, K., Lennartson, B.: A symbolic approach to large-scale discrete event systems modeled as finite automata with variables. In: 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. Autom. Sci. Eng., pp. 502–507. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassan, Z., Bradley, A.R., Somenzi, F.: Incremental, Inductive CTL Model Checking. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 532–547. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. ACM SIGPLAN Not., 58–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoder, K., Bjørner, N.: Generalized property directed reachability. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 157–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoder, K., Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: Interpolation and symbol elimination in vampire. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 188–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopcroft, J., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, 3rd edn. Series in Computer Science,Education. Pearson Education India (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar, R., Garg, V., Marcus, S.: Predicates and predicate transformers for supervisory control of discrete event dynamical systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 38(2), 232–247 (1993)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leduc, R., Lawford, M., Wonham, W.M.: Hierarchical interface-based supervisory control-part II: parallel case. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 50(9), 1336–1348 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miremadi, S., Åkesson, K., Fabian, M., Vahidi, A.: Solving two supervisory control benchmark problems using Supremica. In: 9th Int. Work. Discret. Event Syst., pp. 131–136 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miremadi, S., Lennartson, B., Åkesson, K.: A BDD-Based Approach for Modeling Plant and Supervisor by Extended Finite Automata. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 20(6), 1421–1435 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morgenstern, A., Gesell, M., Schneider, K.: Solving games using incremental induction. In: Johnsen, E.B., Petre, L. (eds.) IFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7940, pp. 177–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ouedraogo, L., Kumar, R., Malik, R., Åkesson, K.: Nonblocking and Safe Control of Discrete-Event Systems Modeled as Extended Finite Automata. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 8(3), 560–569 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Modular Feedback Logic for Discrete Event Systems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(5), 1202–1218 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 635–650 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: The control of discrete event systems. Proc. IEEE, Spec. Issue Discret. Event Dyn. Syst. 77(1), 81–98 (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Skoldstam, M., Åkesson, K., Fabian, M.: Modeling of discrete event systems using finite automata with variables. In: 46th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, pp. 3387–3392 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Somenzi, F., Bradley, A.R.: IC3: where monolithic and incremental meet. In: Form. Methods Comput. Des., pp. 3–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, Y., Gohari, P.: Embedded supervisory control of discrete-event systems. In: Int. Conf. Autom. Sci. Eng., pp. 410–415 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Reza Shoaei
    • 1
  • Laura Kovács
    • 2
  • Bengt Lennartson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Signals and SystemsChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations