On Clock Difference Constraints and Termination in Reachability Analysis of Timed Automata

The key step to guarantee termination of reachability analysis for timed automata is the normalisation algorithms for clock constraints i.e. zones represented as DBM’s (Difference Bound Matrices). It transforms DBM’s which may contain arbitrarily large integers (the source of non-termination) into their equivalent according to the maximal constants of clocks appearing in the input timed automaton to be analysed. Surprisingly, though the zones of a timed automaton are essentially difference constraints in the form of x-y~n, as shown in this paper, it is a non-trivial task to normalise the zones of timed automata that allows difference constraints in the enabling conditions (i.e. guards) on transitions. In fact, the existing normalisation algorithms implemented in tools such as Kronos and Uppaal can only handle timed automata (as input) allowing simple constraints in the form of x~n. For a long time, this has been a serious restriction for the existing tools. Difference constraints are indeed needed in many applications e.g. in solving scheduling problems. In this paper, we present a normalisation algorithm to remove the limitation, that based on splitting, transforms DBM’s according to not only maximal constants of clocks but also the set of difference constraints appearing in an input automaton. The algorithm has been implemented and integrated in the Uppaal tool, demonstrating that little run-time overhead is needed though the worst case complexity is the same as in the construction of region automata.

[1]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[2]  Wang Yi,et al.  Uppaal in a nutshell , 1997, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[3]  Wang Yi,et al.  UPPAAL - Now, Next, and Future , 2000, MOVEP.

[4]  Wang Yi,et al.  Compositional and Symbolic Model-Checking of Real-Time Systems , 1996 .

[5]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Hybrid Systems III , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Sergio Yovine,et al.  KRONOS: a verification tool for real-time systems , 1997, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[7]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking for Real-Time Systems , 1994, Inf. Comput..

[8]  Tomas Rokicki Representing and modeling digital circuits , 1994 .

[9]  Sergio Yovine,et al.  Model Checking Timed Automata , 1996, European Educational Forum: School on Embedded Systems.

[10]  Paul Gastin,et al.  Characterization of the Expressive Power of Silent Transitions in Timed Automata , 1998, Fundam. Informaticae.

[11]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems , 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  David Lee,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Minimizing Real-Time Transition Systems , 1997, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[13]  Sean R Eddy,et al.  What is dynamic programming? , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[14]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  The Tool KRONOS , 1996, Hybrid Systems.

[15]  Wang Yi,et al.  UPPAAL in 1995 , 1996, TACAS.

[16]  David L. Dill,et al.  Timing Assumptions and Verification of Finite-State Concurrent Systems , 1989, Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems.

[17]  Frits W. Vaandrager,et al.  Lectures on Embedded Systems , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[18]  Claude Jard,et al.  Modeling and Verification of Parallel Processes , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Paul Pettersson Modelling and Verification of Real-Time Systems Using Timed Automata : Theory and Practice , 1999 .

[20]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Theory of Timed Automata , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Wang Yi,et al.  Automatic verification of real-time communicating systems by constraint-solving , 1994, FORTE.

[22]  Graham Higman,et al.  Ordering by Divisibility in Abstract Algebras , 1952 .