Advertisement

Verification of Liveness Properties on Closed Timed-Arc Petri Nets

  • Mathias Andersen
  • Heine Gatten Larsen
  • Jiří Srba
  • Mathias Grund Sørensen
  • Jakob Haahr Taankvist
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7721)

Abstract

Verification of closed timed models by explicit state-space exploration methods is an alternative to the wide-spread symbolic techniques based on difference bound matrices (DBMs). A few experiments found in the literature confirm that for the reachability analysis of timed automata explicit techniques can compete with DBM-based algorithms, at least for situations where the constants used in the models are relatively small. To the best of our knowledge, the explicit methods have not yet been employed in the verification of liveness properties in Petri net models extended with time. We present an algorithm for liveness analysis of closed Timed-Arc Petri Nets (TAPN) extended with weights, transport arcs, inhibitor arcs and age invariants and prove its correctness. The algorithm computes optimized maximum constants for each place in the net that bound the size of the reachable state-space. We document the efficiency of the algorithm by experiments comparing its performance with the state-of-the-art model checker UPPAAL.

Keywords

Reachability Analysis Liveness Property Maximum Constant Time Automaton Delay Transition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Hakansson, J., Petterson, P., Yi, W., Hendriks, M.: Uppaal 4.0. In: QEST 2006, pp. 125–126 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertolini, C., Liu, Z., Srba, J.: Verification of timed healthcare workflows using component timed-arc Petri nets. In: FHIES 2012. Springer (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D.: Efficient Reachability Analysis and Refinement Checking of Timed Automata Using BDDs. In: Margaria, T., Melham, T.F. (eds.) CHARME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2144, pp. 86–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer, D.: Improvements in BDD-Based Reachability Analysis of Timed Automata. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 318–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer, D., Lewerentz, C., Noack, A.: Rabbit: A Tool for BDD-Based Verification of Real-Time Systems. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 122–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bozga, M., Maler, O., Tripakis, S.: Efficient Verification of Timed Automata Using Dense and Discrete Time Semantics. In: Pierre, L., Kropf, T. (eds.) CHARME 1999. LNCS, vol. 1703, pp. 125–141. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    David, A., Jacobsen, L., Jacobsen, M., Jørgensen, K.Y., Møller, M.H., Srba, J.: TAPAAL 2.0: Integrated Development Environment for Timed-Arc Petri Nets. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 492–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dill, D.L.: Timing Assumptions and Verification of Finite-state Concurrent Systems. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanisch, H.M.: Analysis of Place/transition Nets with Timed Arcs and its Application to Batch Process Control. In: Ajmone Marsan, M. (ed.) ICATPN 1993. LNCS, vol. 691, pp. 282–299. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobsen, L., Jacobsen, M., Møller, M.H.: Undecidability of Coverability and Boundedness for Timed-Arc Petri Nets with Invariants. In: Proc. of MEMICS 2009, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobsen, L., Jacobsen, M., Møller, M.H., Srba, J.: Verification of timed-arc Petri nets. In: SOFSEM 2011, pp. 46–72 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: Real-Time Model Checking Is Really Simple. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W. (eds.) CHARME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3725, pp. 162–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsen, K.G., Wang, Y.: Time-abstracted bisimulation: Implicit specifications and decidability. Information and Computation 134(2), 75–101 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Popova-zeugmann, L.: Essential states in time Petri nets. Informatik-Berichte 96 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Frutos Escrig, D., Ruiz, V.V., Marroquín Alonso, O.: Decidability of Properties of Timed-Arc Petri Nets. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 187–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruiz, V.V., Cuartero Gomez, F., de Frutos Escrig, D.: On non-decidability of reachability for timed-arc Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Petri Net and Performance Models (PNPM 1999), pp. 188–196 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Andersen
    • 1
  • Heine Gatten Larsen
    • 1
  • Jiří Srba
    • 1
  • Mathias Grund Sørensen
    • 1
  • Jakob Haahr Taankvist
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark

Personalised recommendations