Action Prefixes: Reified Synchronization Paths in Minimal Component Interaction Automata

Lumpe, Markus

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2010.05.011

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We use bisimulation, in particular weak bisimulation, for this purpose. Weak bisimulation provides us with an equivalence relation that equates automata that only differ in the lengths of occurring internal component synchronization sequences [8,15]. Definition 3 (Weak Bisimulation for Component Interaction Automata) Given two component interaction automata A = (Q A , Act A , δ A , I A , H) and B = (Q B , Act B , δ B , H) with an identical composition hierarchy H, a binary relation R ⊆ Q × Q with Q = Q A ∪ Q B is a weak bisimulation, if it is symmetric and (q, p) ∈ R implies, for all l ∈ Σ, Σ = Σ A ∪ Σ B being the set of structured labels induced by A and B,…”

Section: Partition Refinement For Component Interaction Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Component Interaction Automata we use weak bisimluation, a behavioral equivalence relation that abstracts from internal component synchronizations. In other words, partition refinement for Component Interaction Automata equates both behavioral equivalent substructures of an automaton and states that are solely connected by internal component synchronizations [16,15]. Consider, for example, the graphical representation of the automata C620C915 and C620915 shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both (C620, a6,C915) and (C620, a3,C915) have to remain in C620C915 as their respective target states offer different interaction capabilities. Second, the states s1, s3, s4, and s6 in C620C915 form a community [9] or synchronization clique [15] that gives rise to a significant reduction. Here, the reduction involves a terminal state, but if C620C915 were to occur within a larger system, this particular effect would enable the partition refinement algorithm to yield a better reduction ratio.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, unlike its predecessors, Component Interaction Automata distinguishes between components and component instances [14]. This embodies a crucial difference that makes the Component Interaction Automata approach more suitable for the specification of real-world component-oriented systems [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we have developed a bisimulation-based partition refinement algorithm for Component Interaction Automata [16,15]. Partition refinement [11] constructs, if possible, a new image of a given automaton, where the states of the new automaton correspond to the equivalence classes of the old automaton.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Partition Refinement of Component Interaction Automata: Why Structure Matters More Than Size

Lumpe

Vasa

2010

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automata-based modeling languages, like Component Interaction Automata, offer an attractive means to capture and analyze the behavioral aspects of interacting components. At the center of these modeling languages we find finite state machines that allow for a fine-grained description how and when specific service requests may interact with other components or the environment. Unfortunately, automata-based approaches suffer from exponential state explosion, a major obstacle to the successful application of these formalisms in modeling real-world scenarios. In order to cope with the complexity of individual specifications we can apply partition refinement, an abstraction technique to alleviate the state explosion problem. But this technique too exhibits exponential time and space complexity and, worse, does not offer any guarantees for success. To better understand as to why partition refinement succeeds in some cases while it fails in others, we conducted an empirical study on the performance of a partition refinement algorithm for Component Interaction Automata specifications. As a result we have identified suitable predictors for the expected effectiveness of partition refinement. It is the structure, not the size, of a specification that weighs heavier on the outcome of partition refinement. In particular, Component Interaction Automata specifications for real-world systems are capable of producing scale-free networks containing structural artifacts that can assist the partition refinement algorithm not only converge earlier, but also yield a significant state space reduction on occasion.

show abstract

Section: Partition Refinement For Component Interaction Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%