A Polynomial-Time Checkable Sufficient Condition for Deadlock-Freedom of Component-Based Systems

Robustness in Interaction Systems

“…The properties are local/global deadlock-freedom, local progress of a set of components and liveness. These properties of interaction systems have been studied in detail in [22,18,19,17,15]. In Sect.…”

“…First we take up the notion of local and global deadlock-freedom for interaction systems from [18,22].…”

“…A A respectively liveness without A A is at least as hard. One way to deal with the complexity issue for properties is to establish conditions that ensure a desired property and can be tested more easily, see for example [22,18,19,26]. In this paper we want to explain how one can systematically use such conditions to obtain results in the case of failure of A .…”

“…In this paper we want to explain how one can systematically use such conditions to obtain results in the case of failure of A . One could raise the question why we study robustness instead of applying the definitions and results of [22,18,19] to a suitably modified "interaction system". One could try to do so by simply removing the ports in A from the components of the interaction system under consideration.…”

“…In [15,16,17] it is shown that deciding deadlock-freedom is PSPACE-hard and deciding liveness is NP-hard for interaction systems. However, as the information about the individual components is maintained in the model it can be exploited to develop sufficient conditions for the desired properties that can be tested in polynomial time [18,19,17]. As violations of safety properties can be expressed as deadlocks broad classes of properties can be handled in this approach.…”