Verification of hybrid controlled processing systems based on decomposition and deduction

While formal verification has been successfully used to analyze several academic examples of controlled hybrid systems, the application to real-world processing systems is largely restricted by the complexity of modeling and computation. This paper aims at improving the applicability by using decomposition and deduction techniques: A given system is first decomposed into a set of physical and/or functional units and modeled by communicating timed automata or linear hybrid automata. The so-called assumption/commitment method allows one to formulate requirements for the desired behavior of single modules or groups of modules. Model-checking is an appropriate technique to analyze whether the requirements (e.g. the exclusion of critical states) are fulfilled. By combining the analysis results obtained for single modules, properties of composed modules can be deduced. As illustrated for a laboratory plant, properties of the complete system for which direct model-checking is prohibitively expensive can be inferred by the iterative application of analysis and deduction.

[1]  Olaf Stursberg,et al.  Verification of logic controllers for continuous plants using timed condition/event-system models , 1999, Autom..

[2]  Oded Maler,et al.  Reachability Analysis via Face Lifting , 1998, HSCC.

[3]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  HYTECH: a model checker for hybrid systems , 1997, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[4]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  In Transition From Global to Modular Temporal Reasoning about Programs , 1989, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems.

[5]  Martín Abadi,et al.  Conjoining specifications , 1995, TOPL.

[6]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Automating Modular Verification , 1999, CONCUR.

[7]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  The Algorithmic Analysis of Hybrid Systems , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  P. I. Barton,et al.  Formal verification of sequence controllers , 2000 .

[9]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems , 1989, NATO ASI Series.

[10]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Automatic verification of sequential control systems using temporal logic , 1992 .

[11]  Heiko Krumm,et al.  Approaches to the Formal Verification of Hybrid Systems , 2001 .

[12]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR , 1982, Symposium on Programming.

[13]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic , 1981, Logic of Programs.

[14]  George J. Pappas,et al.  Decidable Hybrid Systems , 1998 .

[15]  K. Mani Chandy,et al.  Proofs of Networks of Processes , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[16]  Jozef Hooman.  Compositional Verification of Real-Time Applications , 1997, COMPOS.

[17]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  HYTECH: A Model Checker for Hybrid Systems , 1997, CAV.

[18]  Bruce H. Krogh,et al.  Verification of Polyhedral-Invariant Hybrid Automata Using Polygonal Flow Pipe Approximations , 1999, HSCC.

[19]  P. Varaiya,et al.  Decidable hybrid systems , 1996 .

[20]  O. Stursberg,et al.  Continuous-discrete interactions in chemical processing plants , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[21]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Modularity for Timed and Hybrid Systems , 1997, CONCUR.

[22]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  On the complexity of modular model checking , 1995, Proceedings of Tenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[23]  Edward Y. Chang,et al.  Compositional verification of real-time systems , 1994, Proceedings Ninth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[24]  Adam L. Turk,et al.  Verification of Real Time Chemical Processing Systems , 1997, HART.

[25]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  You Assume, We Guarantee: Methodology and Case Studies , 1998, CAV.