Formal Verification and Simulation for Performance Analysis for Probabilistic Broadcast Protocols

  • Ansgar Fehnker
  • Peng Gao
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4104)


This paper describes formal probabilistic models of flooding and gossiping protocols, and explores the influence of different modeling choices and assumptions on the results of performance analysis. We use Prism, a model checker for probabilistic systems, for the formal analysis of protocols and small network topologies, and use in addition Monte-Carlo simulation, implemented in Matlab, to establish if the results and effects found during formal analysis extend to larger networks. This combination of approaches has several advantages. The formal model has well defined synchronisation primitives with clear semantics for modeling synchronous and asynchronous communication between nodes. Model checking of the probabilistic model determines exact probabilities and performance bounds, even if the model is non-deterministic; results that cannot be obtained by simulation. However, Monte-Carlo simulation can then be used in addition to study effects that only emerge in larger networks, such as phase transition.


Source Node Model Check Markov Decision Process Probabilistic Choice Execution Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Li, L., Halpern, J., Haas, Z.: Gossip-based ad hoc routing. In: INFOCOM. (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sasson, Y., Cavin, D., Schiper, A.: Probabilistic broadcast for flooding in wireless mobile ad hoc networks. In: WCNC 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardell-Oliver, R.: Why Flooding is Unreliable (Extended Version). Technical Report UWA-CSSE-04-001, CSSE, University of Western Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viswanath, K., Obraczka, K.: Modeling the performance of flooding in multihop ad hoc networks. Computer Communications Journal (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sasson, Y., Cavin, D., Schiper, A.: On the accuracy of manet simulators. In: Principles of Mobile Computing (POMC 2002), pp. 38–43 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Sproston, J.: Probabilistic Model Checking of the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network Protocol. In: Hermanns, H., Segala, R. (eds.) PROBMIV 2002, PAPM-PROBMIV 2002, and PAPM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2399, p. 169. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Probabilistic model checking and power-aware computing. In: PMCCS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amnell, T., Fersman, E., Mokrushin, L., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Times: A tool for schedulability analysis and code generation of real-time systems. In: FORMATS, pp. 60–72 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar, R., Paul, A., Ramachandran, U.: Fountain broadcast for wireless networks. Technical report, CERCS, Georgia Tech (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinton, A., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: A Tool for Automatic Verification of Probabilistic Systems. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006 and ETAPS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 441–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Fehnker
    • 1
  • Peng Gao
    • 1
  1. 1.National ICT Australia and University of New South Wales 

Personalised recommendations