Extended Finite State Machine

  • V. S. Alagar
  • K. Periyasamy
Part of the Texts in Computer Science book series (TCS)


The FSM models we have considered, in spite of many extensions to basic automaton, fall short in many aspects. They have to be extended further, as broadly outlined below, in order to model complex system behavior.


State Machine Finite State Machine Grammar Rule State Transition Diagram Extended Finite State Machine 
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.


  1. 1.
    Alur R, Dill D (1991) The theory of timed automata. In: de Bakker JW, Huizing C, de Roever WP, Rozenberg G (eds) Real-time: theory in practice. LNCS, vol 600, pp 74–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis N (1987) Problem # 4: LIFT. In: Fourth international workshop on software specification and design, IEEE Computer Soc, Los Alamitos Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denert E (1977) Specification and design of dialogue systems with state diagrams. In: Ribbons D (ed) International computing symposium. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 417–424 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dima C (2001) Real-time automata. J Autom Lang Comb 6(1):3–23 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Douglass BP (1999) Doing hard time: developing real-time systems with UML, objects, frameworks, and patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eker J, Janneck JW, Lee EA, Liu J, Ludvig J, Neundorffer S, Xiong Y (2003) Taming heterogeneity—the Ptolemy approach. Proc IEEE 9(12):127–144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fantinato M, Jino M (2003) Applying extended finite state machines in software testing of interactive systems. In: DSV-IS 2003. LNCS, vol 2844, pp 34–45 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel D (1987) Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program 8:231–274 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel D, Pnueli A, Schmidt JP, Sherman R (1987) On the formal semantics of statecharts. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, pp 54–64 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katagiriy H, Yasumotoz K, Kitajimay A, Higashinoy T, Taniguchiy K (2000) Hardware, implementation of communication protocols modeled by concurrent EFSMs with multiway synchronization. In: Proceedings of the 37th conference on design automation (DAC’00), Los Angeles, USA Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee EA (2009) Finite state machines and modal models in Ptolemy II. Technical report No UCB/EECS-2009-151, University of California at Berkeley, November 2009 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohamad M, Alagar V (2010) A component-based development process for trustworthy systems. J Softw Maint Evol, Res Pract 1–20 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohamad M, Alagar V (2010) A formal approach to for the specification and verification of trustworthy component-based systems. J Syst Softw Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) (2009) Superstructure version 2.2 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prochnow S, von Hanxleden R (2007) Statechat development beyond WYSIWYG. In: International conference on model driven engineering languages and systems. ACM/IEEE, Nashville Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selic B, Gullekson G, Ward PT (1994) Real-time object-oriented modeling. Wiley, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sinha A, Paradkar A, Williams C (2007) On generating EFSM models from use cases. In: Proceedings of sixth international workshop on scenarios and state machines (SCESM’07), pp 1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zave P (1993) Feature interactions and formal specifications in telecommunications. IEEE Comput 20–30 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Computer Science and Software Eng.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin-La CrosseLa CrosseUSA

Personalised recommendations