Slicing Behavior Tree Models for Verification

Yatapanage, Nisansala; Winter, Kirsten; Zafar, Saad

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15240-5_10

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Section 3 we provide the definitions on which basic slicing of Behavior Trees are built. This summarises the results from [13] and gives the background. In Section 4 we demonstrate how the definition of the next-preserving branching bisimulation gives rise to a new sophisticated slicing procedure that generates a nextpreserving bisimilar slice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…From this, the inductive step is derived from Definition 6. For the full details of the proof, we refer the reader to [21].…”

Section: Preservation Of Ctl *mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [13] we have defined standard slicing for Behavior Tree models which preserves LTL −X formulas (i.e., linear temporal formulas that do not contain the X operator). In this section we briefly introduce the Behavior Tree notation and the basic concepts of standard slicing for this language.…”

Section: Slicing Behavior Tree Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dependencies specifically defined for BTs are control dependence (cd), data dependence(dd), message dependence (md) (between internal input and output nodes), synchronisation dependence (sd) (between synchronisation nodes), interference dependence (id) (a dependence across parallel threads), and termination dependence (td) (between a node which terminates another thread, such as a reversion or thread kill node, and a node in the thread to be terminated). The definitions of these dependencies, as well as examples, can be found in [13,21]. The edges in the BTDG are denoted as p d q where d ∈ {cd, dd, md, sd, id}, indicating that node q depends on node p and the dependency is of type d. A path in a BTDG is a sequence of nodes such that for every pair of consecutive nodes n i and n i+1 there is a dependency of some type d, i.e., n i d n i+1 .…”

Section: Node Dependenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 If there exists nodes p, q, r such that p id q and q id r then p id r only if there exists a possible execution which performs p, q, and r in sequence [21,40]. In some cases the execution of p might exclude the execution of r, e.g., when both nodes are in alternative branches rather than parallel branches.…”

Section: A Layered Approach To Slicingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Next-preserving branching bisimulation

Yatapanage

Winter

2015

Theoretical Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bisimulations are in general equivalence relations between transition systems which assure that certain aspects of the behaviour of the systems are the same. For many applications it is not possible to maintain such an equivalence unless non-observable (stuttering) behaviour is ignored. However, existing bisimulation relations which permit the removal of non-observable behaviour are unable to preserve temporal logic formulas referring to the next step operator. In this paper we propose a novel bisimulation relation, called next-preserving branching bisimulation, which accomplishes this, maintaining the validity of formulas with the next step, while still allowing non-observable behaviour to be reduced. Based on van Glabbeek and Weijland's notion of branching bisimulation with explicit divergence, we define the novel relation for which we prove the preservation of full CTL * . As an example for its application we show how this definition gives rise to an advanced slicing procedure for temporal logics, a technique in which a system model is reduced to a slice which can be used as a substitute in verification and debugging. The result is a novel procedure for generating a slice that is next-preserving branching bisimilar to the original model. Hence, we can assure that any temporal logic property is preserved in a slice that is created with respect to that property, and consequently the verification on the slice is sound.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…From this, the inductive step is derived from Definition 6. For the full details of the proof, we refer the reader to [21].…”

Section: Preservation Of Ctl *mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Slicing Behavior Tree Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Node Dependenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Layered Approach To Slicingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Next-preserving branching bisimulation

Yatapanage

Winter

2015

Theoretical Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Experience with fault injection experiments for FMEA

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a widely used system and software safety analysis technique that systematically identifies failure modes of system components and explores whether these failure modes might lead to potential hazards. In practice, FMEA is typically a labor‐intensive team‐based exercise, with little tool support. This article presents our experience with automating parts of the FMEA process, using a model checker to automate the search for system‐level consequences of component failures. The idea is to inject runtime faults into a model based on the system specification and check if the resulting model violates safety requirements, specified as temporal logical formulas. This enables the safety engineer to identify if a component failure, or combination of multiple failures, can lead to a specified hazard condition. If so, the model checker produces an example of the events leading up to the hazard occurrence which the analyst can use to identify the relevant failure propagation pathways and co‐effectors. The process is applied on three medium‐sized case studies modeled with Behavior Trees. Performance metrics for SAL model checking are presented. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract