Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events
This paper addresses the verification of non-blockingness for modular discrete-event systems, i.e., discrete-event systems that are composed from component models. For such systems, the explicit construction of a monolithic representation turns out intractable for relevant applications, since such a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Discrete event dynamic systems 2024-03, Vol.34 (1), p.125-161 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 161 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 125 |
container_title | Discrete event dynamic systems |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Tang, Yiheng Moor, Thomas |
description | This paper addresses the verification of non-blockingness for modular discrete-event systems, i.e., discrete-event systems that are composed from component models. For such systems, the explicit construction of a monolithic representation turns out intractable for relevant applications, since such a construction in general is of exponential cost w.r.t. the number of components. One well established approach to circumvent the need for a monolithic representation for the verification task at hand is to alternate (a) the substitution of individual components by abstractions and (b) the composition of only a small number of strategically chosen components at a time. When successful, one ends up with a single moderately sized automaton which does not represent the overall behaviour in any detail but which does block if and only if the original modular system fails to be non-conflicting. This approach is referred to as
compositional verification
and originates from the field of process algebra with more recent adaptations to finite automata models. The main contribution of the present study is the development of a number of abstraction rules valid for compositional verification of non-conflictingness in the presence of global event priorities, i.e., where high priority events from one component possibly preempt events with lower priority of all components. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2927440408</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2927440408</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-85761817acb05898e789090abde06bbe3f0e57cba4b6c90dbe0f7302c15b96043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLtOAzEQRS0EEuHxA1QrURvGj12vSxTxkiLRAK1lO97gkNjBdoL4exwWiY5qijn3auYgdEHgigCI60ygox0GyjEAkxzTAzQhrWBYtJIfognIuuoEsGN0kvMS9hS0E_Q6jetNzL74GPSqCTFgs4r23YdFcDk3O5f84K3e75s4NIMPvrhGb0tc66KbT1_emk3yMdWK7OaN27lQ8hk6GvQqu_PfeYpe7m6fpw949nT_OL2ZYcsIL7hvRUd6IrQ10Payd6KXIEGbuYPOGMcGcK2wRnPTWQlz42AQDKglrZEdcHaKLsfeTYofW5eLWsZtqp9kRSUVnAOHvlJ0pGyKOSc3qHrxWqcvRUDt_anRn6r-1I8_RWuIjaFc4bBw6a_6n9Q3wUl0bg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2927440408</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Tang, Yiheng ; Moor, Thomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Tang, Yiheng ; Moor, Thomas</creatorcontrib><description>This paper addresses the verification of non-blockingness for modular discrete-event systems, i.e., discrete-event systems that are composed from component models. For such systems, the explicit construction of a monolithic representation turns out intractable for relevant applications, since such a construction in general is of exponential cost w.r.t. the number of components. One well established approach to circumvent the need for a monolithic representation for the verification task at hand is to alternate (a) the substitution of individual components by abstractions and (b) the composition of only a small number of strategically chosen components at a time. When successful, one ends up with a single moderately sized automaton which does not represent the overall behaviour in any detail but which does block if and only if the original modular system fails to be non-conflicting. This approach is referred to as
compositional verification
and originates from the field of process algebra with more recent adaptations to finite automata models. The main contribution of the present study is the development of a number of abstraction rules valid for compositional verification of non-conflictingness in the presence of global event priorities, i.e., where high priority events from one component possibly preempt events with lower priority of all components.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0924-6703</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7594</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Control ; Convex and Discrete Geometry ; Discrete event systems ; Electrical Engineering ; Machines ; Manufacturing ; Mathematics ; Mathematics and Statistics ; Modular systems ; Operations Research/Decision Theory ; Processes ; Representations ; Systems Theory ; Topical Collection on Theory-2022 ; Verification</subject><ispartof>Discrete event dynamic systems, 2024-03, Vol.34 (1), p.125-161</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-85761817acb05898e789090abde06bbe3f0e57cba4b6c90dbe0f7302c15b96043</cites><orcidid>0009-0003-0396-2619</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tang, Yiheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moor, Thomas</creatorcontrib><title>Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events</title><title>Discrete event dynamic systems</title><addtitle>Discrete Event Dyn Syst</addtitle><description>This paper addresses the verification of non-blockingness for modular discrete-event systems, i.e., discrete-event systems that are composed from component models. For such systems, the explicit construction of a monolithic representation turns out intractable for relevant applications, since such a construction in general is of exponential cost w.r.t. the number of components. One well established approach to circumvent the need for a monolithic representation for the verification task at hand is to alternate (a) the substitution of individual components by abstractions and (b) the composition of only a small number of strategically chosen components at a time. When successful, one ends up with a single moderately sized automaton which does not represent the overall behaviour in any detail but which does block if and only if the original modular system fails to be non-conflicting. This approach is referred to as
compositional verification
and originates from the field of process algebra with more recent adaptations to finite automata models. The main contribution of the present study is the development of a number of abstraction rules valid for compositional verification of non-conflictingness in the presence of global event priorities, i.e., where high priority events from one component possibly preempt events with lower priority of all components.</description><subject>Control</subject><subject>Convex and Discrete Geometry</subject><subject>Discrete event systems</subject><subject>Electrical Engineering</subject><subject>Machines</subject><subject>Manufacturing</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Mathematics and Statistics</subject><subject>Modular systems</subject><subject>Operations Research/Decision Theory</subject><subject>Processes</subject><subject>Representations</subject><subject>Systems Theory</subject><subject>Topical Collection on Theory-2022</subject><subject>Verification</subject><issn>0924-6703</issn><issn>1573-7594</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kLtOAzEQRS0EEuHxA1QrURvGj12vSxTxkiLRAK1lO97gkNjBdoL4exwWiY5qijn3auYgdEHgigCI60ygox0GyjEAkxzTAzQhrWBYtJIfognIuuoEsGN0kvMS9hS0E_Q6jetNzL74GPSqCTFgs4r23YdFcDk3O5f84K3e75s4NIMPvrhGb0tc66KbT1_emk3yMdWK7OaN27lQ8hk6GvQqu_PfeYpe7m6fpw949nT_OL2ZYcsIL7hvRUd6IrQ10Payd6KXIEGbuYPOGMcGcK2wRnPTWQlz42AQDKglrZEdcHaKLsfeTYofW5eLWsZtqp9kRSUVnAOHvlJ0pGyKOSc3qHrxWqcvRUDt_anRn6r-1I8_RWuIjaFc4bBw6a_6n9Q3wUl0bg</recordid><startdate>20240301</startdate><enddate>20240301</enddate><creator>Tang, Yiheng</creator><creator>Moor, Thomas</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0396-2619</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240301</creationdate><title>Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events</title><author>Tang, Yiheng ; Moor, Thomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-85761817acb05898e789090abde06bbe3f0e57cba4b6c90dbe0f7302c15b96043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Control</topic><topic>Convex and Discrete Geometry</topic><topic>Discrete event systems</topic><topic>Electrical Engineering</topic><topic>Machines</topic><topic>Manufacturing</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Mathematics and Statistics</topic><topic>Modular systems</topic><topic>Operations Research/Decision Theory</topic><topic>Processes</topic><topic>Representations</topic><topic>Systems Theory</topic><topic>Topical Collection on Theory-2022</topic><topic>Verification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tang, Yiheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moor, Thomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Discrete event dynamic systems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tang, Yiheng</au><au>Moor, Thomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events</atitle><jtitle>Discrete event dynamic systems</jtitle><stitle>Discrete Event Dyn Syst</stitle><date>2024-03-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>125</spage><epage>161</epage><pages>125-161</pages><issn>0924-6703</issn><eissn>1573-7594</eissn><abstract>This paper addresses the verification of non-blockingness for modular discrete-event systems, i.e., discrete-event systems that are composed from component models. For such systems, the explicit construction of a monolithic representation turns out intractable for relevant applications, since such a construction in general is of exponential cost w.r.t. the number of components. One well established approach to circumvent the need for a monolithic representation for the verification task at hand is to alternate (a) the substitution of individual components by abstractions and (b) the composition of only a small number of strategically chosen components at a time. When successful, one ends up with a single moderately sized automaton which does not represent the overall behaviour in any detail but which does block if and only if the original modular system fails to be non-conflicting. This approach is referred to as
compositional verification
and originates from the field of process algebra with more recent adaptations to finite automata models. The main contribution of the present study is the development of a number of abstraction rules valid for compositional verification of non-conflictingness in the presence of global event priorities, i.e., where high priority events from one component possibly preempt events with lower priority of all components.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2</doi><tpages>37</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0396-2619</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0924-6703 |
ispartof | Discrete event dynamic systems, 2024-03, Vol.34 (1), p.125-161 |
issn | 0924-6703 1573-7594 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2927440408 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Control Convex and Discrete Geometry Discrete event systems Electrical Engineering Machines Manufacturing Mathematics Mathematics and Statistics Modular systems Operations Research/Decision Theory Processes Representations Systems Theory Topical Collection on Theory-2022 Verification |
title | Compositional non-blockingness verification of finite automata with prioritised events |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T06%3A19%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compositional%20non-blockingness%20verification%20of%20finite%20automata%20with%20prioritised%20events&rft.jtitle=Discrete%20event%20dynamic%20systems&rft.au=Tang,%20Yiheng&rft.date=2024-03-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=125&rft.epage=161&rft.pages=125-161&rft.issn=0924-6703&rft.eissn=1573-7594&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10626-024-00394-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2927440408%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2927440408&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |