We have seen how discrete-event systems (DES) differ from continuous-variable dynamic systems (CVDS) and why DES are not adequately modeled through differential or difference equations. Our first task, therefore, in studying DES is to develop appropriate models, which both adequately describe the behavior of these systems and provide a framework for analytical techniques to meet the goals of design, control, and performance evaluation.

When considering the state evolution of a DES, our first concern is with the sequence of states visited and the associated events causing these state transitions. To begin with, we will not concern ourselves with the issue of when the system enters a particular state or how long the system remains at that state. We will assume that the behavior of the DES is described in terms of event sequences of the form e 1 e 2 n . A sequence of that form specifies the order in which various events occur over time, but it does not provide the time instants associated with the occurrence of these events. This is the untimed or logical level of abstraction discussed in Sect. 1.3.3 in  Chap. 1, where the behavior of the system is modeled by a language. Consequently, our first objective in this chapter is to discuss language models of DES and present operations on languages that will be used extensively in this and the next chapters.


Regular Expression Regular Language Parallel Composition Marked State Uncertain State 
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.

Selected References

∎Languages and Automata Theory

  1. — Hopcroft, J.E., R. Motwani, and J.D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, 3/E, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. — Sipser, M., Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Second Edition, Thomson Course Technology, Boston, 2006.Google Scholar

Automata and Related Modeling Formalisms

  1. — Arnold, A., Finite Transition Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. — Harel, D., and M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The State-mate Approach, Wiley, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. — Kurshan, R.P., Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1994.Google Scholar

∎Some Other (Untimed) Modeling Formalisms for Discrete Event Systems

  1. — Baeten, J.C.M., and W.P. Weijland, Process Algebra, Volume 18 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. — Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. — Inan, K., and P.P. Varaiya, “Algebras of Discrete Event Models,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77, pp. 24–38, January 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. — Milner, R., Communication and Concurrency, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar

∎Model Checking and Temporal Logic

  1. — Bérard, B., M. Bidoit, A. Finkel, F. Laroussinie, A. Petit, L. Petrucci, Ph. Schnoebelen, with P. McKenzie, Systems and Software Verification. Model-Checking Techniques and Tools, Springer, New York, 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. — Clarke, E.M., O. Grumberg, and D. A. Peled, Model Checking, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. — Manna, Z., and A. Pnueli, The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Sys-tems: Specification, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. — McMillan, K.L., Symbolic Model Checking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar

∎ Miscellaneous

  1. — Cormen, T.H., C. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, and C. Stein,Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. — Dini, P., R. Boutaba, and L. Logrippo (Eds.), Feature Interactions in Telecommunication Networks IV, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. — Holzmann, G.J., Design and Validation of Computer Protocols, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. — Papadimitriou, C, The Theory of Database Concurrency Control, Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. — Sampath, M., R. Sengupta, S. Lafortune, K. Sinnamohideen, and D. Teneketzis, “Failure Diagnosis Using Discrete Event Models,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 105–124, March 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — Y. Wang, T.-S. Yoo, and S. Lafortune, “Diagnosis of Discrete Event Systems using Decentralized Architectures,” Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: Theory and Applications. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Personalised recommendations