Languages and Automata

Part of the The Kluwer International Series on Discrete Event Dynamic Systems book series (DEDS, volume 11)


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.


Regular Expression Regular Language Parallel Composition Marked State Unobservable Event 
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. Hoperoft, J.E., and J.D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Savage, J.E., Models of Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Sipser, M., Introduction to the Theory of Computation, PWS Publishing Company, Boston, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Automata and Related Modeling Formalisms

  1. Arnold, A., Finite Transition Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Harel, D., and M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate 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.zbMATHGoogle 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.zbMATHGoogle Scholar


  1. Burch, J.R., E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang. “Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond,” Information and Computation, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 142–170, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corner, T.H., C. Leiserson, and R.L. Rivest, Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. Dini, P., R. Boutaba, and L. Logrippo (Eds.), Feature Interactions in Telecommunication Networks IV, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Holzmann, G.J., Design and Validation of Computer Protocols, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. McMillan, K.L., Symbolic Model Checking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Papadimitriou, C., The Theory of Database Concurrency Control, Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD, 1986.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston UniversityUSA
  2. 2.The University of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations