Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Decidability Issues for Decentralized Controllability of Open Nets
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Decidability Issues for Decentralized Controllability of Open Nets


Published on

AWPN 2010

AWPN 2010

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Karsten Wolf DecidabilityDecidability IssuesIssues forfor DecentralizedDecentralized ControllabilityControllability of Open Netsof Open Nets
  • 2. read more: Controllability centralized decentralized autonomous
  • 3. read more: Decentralized Controllability Adaptability
  • 4. read more: Decentralized Controllability Adaptability
  • 5. read more: Decentralized Controllability Adaptability
  • 6. read more: Decentralized Controllability Adaptability Realizability
  • 7. read more: Decentralized Controllability Adaptability Realizability
  • 8. read more: So far: decidable for… centralized decentralized autonomous Finite state deadlock freedom weak termination Acyclic deadlock freedom (= weak termination) Finite state deadlock freedom
  • 9. read more: Decentralized (acyclic) -Start with centralized most permissive partner, unrolled to tree -Remove nodes (subtrees) where actions of different ports do not commute ?a ?b !a !b !a disables !b !a !b Does not work on graphs
  • 10. read more: Post‘s Correspondance Problem Given: finitely many pairs of words (a,aba) , (ab,bb), (baa,aa). Problem: Is there a (nonempty) sequence of pairs such that left words concatenate to the same result as right words? yes, 1 3 2 3: a baa ab baa = aba aa bb aa. Problem undecidable. Proof by reduction from halting problem of TM – difference between left and right corresponds to TM configuration
  • 11. read more: Reduce Decentralized Controllability to PCP Idea: Controller corresponds to solution of PCP (a,aba) , (ab,bb), (baa,aa). Left: 1 a 3 baa 2 ab 3 baa # Right: 1 aba 3 aa 2 bb 3 aa # Service -Checks whether input is solution -Checks whether input is valid -Goes to deadlock if anything goes wrong Impossible at the same time decide internally, check one
  • 12. read more: Service (Sketch) b b 1,2,3 1,2,3 # # 1 1 2 2 3 3 (a,aba) , (ab,bb), (baa,aa) a aba ab bb baa aa # # a a c c Weak terminating controller must be both valid and solution
  • 13. read more: What about deadlock freedom? Can avoid deadlock by sending infinite sequence What about centralized controllability? Centralized controller can detect internal decision of service according to different progress at left and right ports after detection proceed with either none-solution or invalid sequence
  • 14. read more: What about the others? [Tripakis] Control problem = language PCP is encoded in language to be enforced [Bontemps & Schobbens] -Internal decision: send either left or right sequence to A, indices to B -A may talk to B -In the end, A and B must return ‚left‘ or ‚right‘ (claim: impossible if and only if PCP has solution) implicitly requires unbounded memory In our setting: „may talk to each other“ = centralized setting, decidable
  • 15. read more: Conclusion -Decentralized controllability for weak termination is undecidable -This result apparently not covered by previous approaches -Realizability, adaptability most likely undecidable -Decentralized controllability for deadlock freedom still open -Centralized and autonomous settings provide useful lower and upper bounds -Floor open for approximations, heuristics, subclasses, …