1 / 28

Symbolic Concurrent Semantics of Safe Petri nets

Symbolic Concurrent Semantics of Safe Petri nets. Application to Time Petri Nets. Claude Jard, ENS Cachan / IRISA, Rennes, France & Thomas Chatain, ENS Cachan / LSV, Cachan, France. Why are we interested in PN and unfoldings?.

conor
Télécharger la présentation

Symbolic Concurrent Semantics of Safe Petri nets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Symbolic Concurrent Semantics of Safe Petri nets Application to Time Petri Nets Claude Jard, ENS Cachan / IRISA, Rennes, France & Thomas Chatain, ENS Cachan / LSV, Cachan, France

  2. Why are we interested in PN and unfoldings? • Supervision and diagnosis: inferring causal dependencies from observations in a distributed system (guided unfolding) -> already in use on Alcatel platforms • Composition of QoS contracts in WS orchestrations (need a partial order view of the behaviours) -> concurrent semantics for ORC In such application domains, we do not need strong decidability results and thus consider extensions of PN with data, time, probas, …

  3. Focus of the talk • Generalize our symbolic approach about unfoldings of time Petri nets • Better understand time specificities in a concurrent setting • Safe colored PN with linear real constraints • Concurrent semantics for such nets • Translations of Time PN

  4. Background: PNs • Places P = {a,b,c}, Transitions T = {u,v,w} Consumed (pre(p,t)), read (cont(p,t)) or written (post(p,t)) by transitions • Marking: p M(p)  {0,1}, • initially: M0(a)= M0(b)=1, M0(c)=0 • t fireable iff ppre(t)cont(t), M(p)=1 • Sequential move by firing t: • p, M(p):=M(p)-pre(p,t)+post(p,t)

  5. Why do we need read arcs? • To be able to test the presence of tokens without serialisation

  6. Sequential behaviours: marking graph finite state automaton Exhaustive simulation

  7. Sequential behaviours: marking graph finite state automaton Exhaustive simulation

  8. Sequential behaviours: marking graph finite state automaton Exhaustive simulation

  9. Sequential behaviours: marking graph finite state automaton Exhaustive simulation

  10. Sequential behaviours: marking graph finite state automaton Exhaustive simulation

  11. Concurrent semantics: processes • v and w can be executed concurrently Processes (partially ordered executions):

  12. Unfolding: union of all the processes Prefix (*≤1):

  13. Notion of conflict • fg = (f ≤ g)  (cont(f)  pre(g)  ) • Conflict(F) = •  f,g  F, pre(f)  pre(g)   or •  (fi)i[1,n]  F, fn=f1  i[1,n-1] fi fi+1

  14. Unfolding: the puzzle game

  15. Unfolding: the puzzle game v

  16. Unfolding: the puzzle game w

  17. Unfolding: the puzzle game u

  18. Unfolding: the puzzle game u

  19. Unfolding: the puzzle game v

  20. Unfolding: the puzzle game Maximal co-sets of places correspond to markings -> notion of finite complete prefix -> bounded in space by the size of the marking graph (can be exponentially smaller) -> but the time complexity can be exponential (size of the prefix to the power of the degree of concurrency) w

  21. Representation as a set of events: event structure e=(e,e,Me)

  22. Our Safe Colored PNs • Places P: finite set of real variables • Transitions T: labeled (G(t)) with linear expressions over pre(t)+cont(t)+post(t)’ • Initial expression: ζ0

  23. Concurrent semantics • Set of events: • U={e=(e,e,Ce,Me)} • ⊥=(∅ζ0[x/x⊥]x∈M0, M0) ∈ U • pre(e)  cont(e)  f∈e Mf • Me=post(e) • Ce=G(e)[x/xe]x∈pre(e)cont(e) [x’/xe]x∈post(e) • e is conflict-free f∈e Cf  Ce satisfiable  e∈ U

  24. Unfolding / Process / Trace • Unfolding is the union of processes • Processes are the conflict-free and downward-causally-closed subsets of the unfolding • Linear extensions of processes are the sequential traces • No hope to obtain in general a complete finite prefix

  25. Safe Time PNs • Syntax: • TPN=(P,T,pre,post,efd,lfd,M0) • efd: T|R • lfd: T |R{} • Sequential semantics: • dob: P|R • (M,dob) -t,-> (M’,dob’) iff • - pre(t)M • - maxppre(t) dob(p) + efd(t) ≤  • - t’T, pre(t’)M   ≤ maxppre(t’) dob(p) + lfd(t’) • - maxpPdob(p) ≤  • M’=(M\pre(t))  post(t) • dob’(p)= if ppost(t), dob(p) otherwise

  26. PE(u) = {bc}, PE(v) = {a,ab}, PE(w)={b,ab,bc} Note: Conflict(abw,abv) Conflict(bcw,abv)

  27. TPN to CPN : read arcs are added to take into account the time dependencies -> duplication of transitions -> try to minimize the number of read arcs

  28. Short term perspectives • Experiments • Existence of finite complete prefixes ? OK • Coding of some TPN extensions ? Stopwatches, parametric PNs… • Study a similar approach for networks of Timed Automata. Experiment with different semantics for time.

More Related