Dependability checking with StoCharts: Is train radio reliable enough for trains?

Proceedings - First International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, QEST 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 250-259

  Jansen, David N ^a   Hermanns, Holger ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATICS   (Germany)

^b SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SAFETY CRITICAL SYSTEM DESIGN; STOCHARTS; TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS; TRAIN RADIO;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; QUALITY OF SERVICE; RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION; RANDOM PROCESSES; WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 16244390207     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/QEST.2004.1348039     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, A. Bobbio, G. Chiola, G. Conte, and A. Cumani. The effect of execution policies on the semantics and analysis of stochastic Petri nets. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 15:832-846, 1989.
2. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, G. Conte, S. Donatelli, and G. Franceschinis. Modeling with generalised stochastic Petri nets. Wiley, 1995.
3. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Conte, and G. Balbo. A class of generalised stochastic Petri nets for the performance evaluation of multiprocessor systems. ACM Transactions on computer systems, 2(2):93-122, 1984.
4. R. Alur and D. Dill. A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126:183-235, 1994.
5. C. Baier, B. R. Haverkort, H. Hermanns, and J.-P. Katoen. Model-checking algorithms for continuous-time Markov chains. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6):524-541, 2003.
6. S. Bernardi, S. Donatelli, and J. Merseguer. From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable Petri net models. In S. Balsamo, P. Inverardi, and B. Selic, editors, Proceedings of the third international workshop on software and performance, pages 35-45, New York, 2002. ACM Press.
7. A. Beugnard, J.-M. Jézéquel, and N. Plouzeau. Making components contract aware. Computer, 32(7):38-45, 1999.
8. A. Bobbio, A. Puliafito, and M. Telek. A modeling framework to impleemnt preemption policies in non-Markovian SPNs. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 26(1):36-54, 2000.
9. C. Cavenet, S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, and P. Stevens. Performance modelling with UML and stochastic process algebra. In UK performance engineering workshop (UKPEW), page 16, 2002.
10. C. Constantinescu. Impact of deep submicron technology on dependability of VLSI circuits. In International conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN'02), pages 205-209. IEEE, 2002.
11. W. Damm, B. Josko, H. Hungar, and A. Pnueli. A compositional real-time semantics of STATEMATE designs. In W.-P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli, editors, Compositionality, the significant difference: intl. symposium COMPOS '97, volume 1536 of LNCS, pages 186-238, Berlin, 1997. Springer.
12. P. R. D'Argenio, H. Hermanns, J.-P. Katoen, and R. Klaren. MoDeST: a modelling and description language for stochastic timed systems. In L. de Alfaro and S. Gilmore, editors, Process Algebra and Probabilistic Methods. Performance Modelling and Verification: Joint International Workshop, PAPM-PROBMIV, volume 2165 of LNCS, pages 87-104, Berlin, 2001. Springer.
13. L. de Alfaro. How to specify and verify the long-run average behavior of probabilistic systems. In Thirteenth annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, pages 454-465, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1998. IEEE computer society.
14. D. D. Deavours and W. H. Sanders. Möbius: Framework and atomic models. In Proc. 9th Int. Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (PNPM '01), pages 251-260. IEEE, 2001.
15. D. D. Deavours and W. H. Sanders. The Möbius execution policy. In Proceedings of the 9th intl. workshop on Petri nets and performance models, pages 135-144. IEEE, 2001.
16. F. Dehne, H. van de Zandschulp, and R. Wieringa. Toolkit for conceptual modeling (TCM). http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~tcm/.
17. R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. Requirements-level semantics for UML statecharts. In S. F. Smith and C. L. Talcott, editors, Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems IV: ...FMOODS, pages 121-140, Boston, 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18. Euroradio FFFIS: class 1 requirements. http://www.aeif.org/db/docs/ccm/ SUBSET-052_v200.PDF, 2000.
19. Functional requirement specifications: train integrity monitoring system, http://www.aeif.org/db/docs/ccm/EEIG-TIMS-Document.doc, 2000.
20. N. Götz, U. Herzog, and M. Rettelbach. Multiprocessor and distributed system design: the integration of functional specification and performance analysis using stochastic process algebras, volume 729 of LNCS, pages 121-146. 1993.
21. D. Harel and A. Naamad. The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(4):293-333, 1996.
22. J. Hillston. A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling. Distinguished dissertations in computer science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
23. G. Huszerl, I. Majzik, A. Pataricza, K. Kosmidis, and M. Dal Cin. Quantitative analysis of UML statechart models of dependable systems. The computer journal, 45(3):260-277, 2002. ISSN: 0010-4620.
24. D. N. Jansen. Extensions of statecharts with probability, time, and stochastic timing. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Inmarks, Bern, October 2003. ISBN 3-9522850-0-5.
25. D. N. Jansen, H. Hermanns, and J.-P. Katoen. A probabilistic extension of UML statecharts: specification and verification. In W. Damm and E.-R. Olderog, editors, Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems: ... FTRTFT, volume 2469 of LNCS, pages 355-374, Berlin, 2002. Springer.
26. D. N. Jansen, H. Hermanns, and J.-P. Katoen. A QoS-oriented extension of UML statecharts. In P. Stevens, J. Whittle, and G. Booch, editors, «UML» 2003: the unified modeling language, volume 2863 of LNCS, pages 76-91. Springer, 2003.
27. P. King and R. Pooley. Derivation of Petri net performance models from UML specifications of communications software. In B. R. Haverkort, H. C. Bohnenkamp, and C. U. Smith, editors, Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools: 11th intl. conference, TOOLS, volume 1786 of LNCS, pages 262-276, Berlin, 2000. Springer.
28. C. Lindemann, A. Thümmler, A. Klemm, M. Lohmann, and O. P. Waldhorst. Performance analysis of time-enhanced UML diagrams based on stochastic processes. In S. Balsamo, P. Inverardi, and B. Selic, editors, Proceedings of the third international workshop on Software and performance, pages 25-34, New York, 2002. ACM Press.
29. N. Lynch and F. Vaandrager. Forward and backward simulations: II. timing-based systems. Information and Computation, 128:1-25, 1996.
30. N. A. Lynch and M. R. Tuttle. An introduction to input/output automata. CWI quarterly, pages 219-246, 1989.
31. J. Merseguer, S. Bernardi, J. Campos, and S. Donatelli. A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation. In M. Silva, A. Giua, and J. M. Colom, editors, Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on discrete event systems, pages 295-302. IEEE computer society press, October 2002.
32. B. Meyer. Applying "design by contract". Computer, 25(10):40-51, October 1992.
33. P. Mitton and R. Holton. PEPA performability modelling using UML statecharts. In N. Thomas and J. Bradley, editors, UKPEW 2000: Sixteenth Annual UK Performance Engineering Workshop, 15 p. University of Durham, UK, July 2000. http://www.dur.ac.uk/nigel.thomas/UKPEW2000/online-proceedings.html.
34. Performance requirements for interoperability, http://www.aeif.org/db/ docs/ccm/SUBSET-041_v200.PDF, March 2000.
35. R. Segala and N. Lynch. Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processes. Nordic Journal of Computing, 2(2):250-273, 1995.
36. D. Tennenhouse. Proactive computing. Comm. of the ACM, 43(5):43-50, 2000.
37. UML profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms: request for proposal. Object Management Group, Inc., Needham, MA, January 2002. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/do-doc?ad/02- 01-07.pdf.
38. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification: OMG Adopted Specification. Object Management Group, Inc., Needham, MA, November 2002. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2002-03-02.
39. H. L. S. Younes and R. G. Simmons. Probabilistic verification of discrete event systems using acceptance sampling. In E. Brinksma and K. G. Larsen, editors, Computer aided verification: 14th intl. conference, CAV, volume 2404 of LNCS, pages 223-235, Berlin, 2002. Springer.
40. A. Zimmermann and G. Hommel. A train control system case study in model-based real time system design. In International parallel and distributed processing symposium, page 118b. IEEE, 2003.