Modular Analysis of Discrete Controllers for Distributed Hybrid Systems

Frehse, Goran; Stursberg, Olaf; Engell, Sebastian; Huuck, Ralf; Lukoschus, Ben

doi:10.3182/20020721-6-es-1901.00566

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By appropriately combining the set of properties assumed and guaranteed by C 1 and C 2 -which are represented by the pairs (A 1 , φ 1 ) and (A 2 , φ 2 ), respectively-, it is possible to assure the correctness of the complete system made up of C 1 and C 2 , i.e., C, without it being necessary to build the complete state transition graph of C, i.e., the (entire) system. This is known as the "Assumption/Commitment", "Rely/Guarantee", "Assumption/Commitment" or "Assume/Guarantee" [12] paradigm [4].…”

Section: Compositional Verification Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This reasoning is founded on the basis of the Assume/Guarantee paradigm, i.e., each system component guarantees certain properties (φ i ) based on other component assumptions (A i ) [4,12]. More specifically, given the C 1 and C 2 components, and the relation between them is given by C = C 1 C 2 , the C 1 behaviour depends on the C 2 behaviour and the C 2 behaviour depends on the C 1 behaviour, in order to achieve the desired behaviour of C. The engineer who is going to carry out the verification of the C behaviour will specify the set of assumptions that C 2 and C 1 (A 2 and A 1 , respectively) must satisfy to guarantee the correctness of C 1 and C 2 (φ 1 and φ 2 ), respectively.…”

Section: Compositional Verification Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While others, such as [7,8], take advantage of the process algebra operators to facilitate the checking of the system's behaviour with respect to its predefined properties. And others [9,10,11,12,13] use the Assumption/Commitment, Rely/Guarantee, Assumption/Commitment or Assume/Guarantee paradigm to minimize the state-explosion problem. Finally, the work already carried out in [3,6,8,14] aims to make a component local verification approach compatible with a deductive system for software verification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compositional Model-Checking Verification of Critical Systems

Mendoza

Capel

Pérez

et al. 2009

Enterprise Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ensuring the correctness of Critical Systems (CS) becomes more complex if we consider that their behaviour is the result of the concurrent execution of many components. Furthermore, any automaton-based representation of concurrent components yields an explosion in the number of states, thus limiting the use of Model-Checking (MC) verification techniques in practice. This article presents a compositional verification approach, which is formally supported by state-ofthe-art MC tools. To facilitate and guarantee the verification of large CS, the proposed approach integrates MEDISTAM-RT (Spanish acronym of Method for System Design based on Analytic Transformation of Real-Time Models), CCTL temporal logic as the property specification formal language, and the formal language CSP+T, used to formally describe a model of the system to be verified. To show a practical use of the proposed approach, a critical part of a realistic industry project related to mobile phone communications is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Compositional Verification Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Compositional Verification Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compositional Model-Checking Verification of Critical Systems

Mendoza

Capel

Pérez

et al. 2009

Enterprise Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reason for this limitation is the difficulty of representing and computing sets of reachable states for continuous dynamic systems. Recent publications have proposed two general approaches to deal with the complexity of hybrid system analysis, namely, modular analysis (e.g., [4,5]) and abstraction (e.g., [6][7][8]). This paper focuses on the latter approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification of Hybrid Systems Based on Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement

Clarke

Fehnker

Han

et al. 2003

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Hybrid dynamic systems include both continuous and discrete state variables. Properties of hybrid systems, which have an infinite state space, can often be verified using ordinary model checking together with a finite-state abstraction. Model checking can be inconclusive, however, in which case the abstraction must be refined. This paper presents a new procedure to perform this refinement operation for abstractions of infinite-state systems, in particular of hybrid systems. Following an approach originally developed for finite-state systems [1, 2], the refinement procedure constructs a new abstraction that eliminates a counterexample generated by the model checker. For hybrid systems, analysis of the counterexample requires the computation of sets of reachable states in the continuous state space. We show how such reachability computations with varying degrees of complexity can be used to refine hybrid system abstractions efficiently. A detailed example illustrates our counterexample-guided refinement procedure. Experimental results for a prototype implementation of the procedure indicate its advantages over existing methods.

show abstract

“…Such a cleaner separation is a necessary prerequisite for the development of an assume-guarantee reasoning scheme (cf. [24] or in the context of hybrid systems [13,9]). Especially we expect that the verification will benefit from an alternative semantics allowing for compositional proofs [11].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%