Controlling Modelling Artifacts

When analysing the performance of a complex system, we typically build abstract models that are small enough to analyse, but still capture the relevant details of the system. But it is difficult to know whether the model accurately describes the real system, or if its behaviour is due to modelling artifacts that were inadvertently introduced. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to reason about modelling artifacts, given a detailed model and a high-level (more abstract) model of the same system. By a series of automated abstraction steps, we lift the detailed model to the same state space as the high-level model, so that they can be directly compared. There are two key ideas in our approach -- a temporal abstraction, where we only look at the state of the system at certain observable points in time, and a spatial abstraction, where we project onto a smaller state space that summarises the possible configurations of the system (for example, by counting the number of components in a certain state). We motivate our methodology with a case study of the LMAC protocol for wireless sensor networks. In particular, we investigate the accuracy of a recently proposed high-level model of LMAC, and identify some modelling artifacts in the model. Since we can apply our abstractions on-the-fly, while exploring the state space of the detailed model, we can analyse larger networks than are possible with existing techniques.

[1]  Anders P. Ravn,et al.  Analysis of collisions in wireless sensor networks , 2009 .

[2]  Kim Guldstrand Larsen,et al.  Specification and refinement of probabilistic processes , 1991, [1991] Proceedings Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[3]  Christel Baier,et al.  Principles of model checking , 2008 .

[4]  Christel Baier,et al.  Weak Bisimulation for Fully Probabilistic Processes , 1997, FBT.

[5]  Paul J.M. Havinga,et al.  A Lightweight Medium Access Protocol (LMAC) for Wireless Sensor Networks: Reducing Preamble Transmissions and Transceiver State Switches , 2004 .

[6]  L.F.W. van Hoesel,et al.  Modelling and Verification of the LMAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2007, IFM.

[7]  Henrik Ejersbo Jensen Model Checking Probabilistic Real Time Systems , 1996 .

[8]  Marco Ajmone Marsan,et al.  A class of generalized stochastic Petri nets for the performance evaluation of multiprocessor systems , 1984, TOCS.

[9]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Reduction and Refinement Strategies for Probabilistic Analysis , 2002, PAPM-PROBMIV.

[10]  Bengt Jonsson,et al.  A framework for reasoning about time and reliability , 1989, [1989] Proceedings. Real-Time Systems Symposium.

[11]  Ilan Beer,et al.  On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas , 1998, CAV.

[12]  Luz Judith R. Esparza,et al.  A Probabilistic Model of the LMAC Protocol for Concurrent Wireless Sensor Networks , 2011, 2011 Eleventh International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[13]  Andrew Hinton,et al.  PRISM: A Tool for Automatic Verification of Probabilistic Systems , 2006, TACAS.

[14]  Martin Leucker,et al.  Don't Know in Probabilistic Systems , 2006, SPIN.

[15]  Ivan Christoff,et al.  Testing Equivalences and Fully Abstract Models for Probabilistic Processes , 1990, CONCUR.