Explaining Boolean-Logic Driven Markov Processes using GSPNs

Khan, Shahid; Katoen, Joost-Pieter; Bouissou, Marc

doi:10.1109/edcc51268.2020.00028

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the general definition of BDMPs in [9] allows the use of arbitrary Markov processes for defining basic events, we restrict ourselves to the commonly used exponential distributions. The semantics of BDMPs has been translated into Markov automaton in [26], and generalised stochastic Petri nets in [27]. The underlying stochastic process of a BDMP is a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC).…”

Section: Fig 1 Lazy Verification For Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scalable Reliability Analysis by Lazy Verification

Khan

Katoen

Volk

et al. 2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an iterative method to analyse system reliability models. The key idea is to analyse a partial state space of a reliability model in a conservative and an optimistic manner. By considering unexplored states as being always operational or, dually, already failed, our analysis yields sound upper-and lower-bounds on the system's reliability. This approach is applied in an iterative manner until the desired precision is obtained. We present details of our approach for Booleanlogic driven Markov processes (BDMPs), an expressive fault tree variant intensively used in analysing energy systems. Based on a prototypical implementation on top of the probabilistic model checker Storm, we experimentally compare our technique to two alternative BDMP analysis techniques: discrete-event simulation obtaining statistical bounds, and a recent closed-form technique for obtaining pessimistic system lifetimes. Our experiments show that mostly only a fragment of the state space needs to be investigated enabling the reliability analysis of models that could not be handled before.S. Khan-supported by a HEC-DAAD scholarship. 1 Known as confidence intervals.

show abstract

Section: Fig 1 Lazy Verification For Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The (compositional) semantics of BDMPs in terms of CTMCs is fully explained in [26,27]. We present the general idea by an example.…”

Section: State-space Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scalable Reliability Analysis by Lazy Verification

Khan

Katoen

Volk

et al. 2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will show that various formal methods can effectively be used to: a) give a formal semantics to fault-tree dialects using Petri nets [5,7] b) simplify fault trees prior to their expensive analysis using graph rewriting [4] c) prove such rewriting correct with theorem proving [2] d) analyse the simplified fault trees by probabilistic model checking [10], and e) treat gigantic models by an iterative "generate partial state-space and verify" paradigm that provides sound bounds [8,10].…”

Section: Verification Conquers Reliability Engineering (Abstract Of I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Graph Transformation

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract