Transformations and decompositions of nets
Advances in Petri nets 1986, part I on Petri nets: central models and their properties
Arbiters: an exercise in specifying and decomposing asynchronously communicating components
Science of Computer Programming
On the models for asynchronous circuit behaviour with OR causality
Formal Methods in System Design
Distributed Algorithms
Signal Graphs: From Self-Timed to Timed Ones
International Workshop on Timed Petri Nets
Decomposition in Asynchronous Circuit Design
Concurrency and Hardware Design, Advances in Petri Nets
Structural Transformations Giving B-Equivalent PT-Nets
Selected Papers from the 3rd European Workshop on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets
Quiescence, Fairness, Testing, and the Notion of Implementation (Extended Abstract)
CONCUR '93 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Concurrency Theory
ILP Models for the Synthesis of Asynchronous Control Circuits
Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/ACM international conference on Computer-aided design
Strategies for Optimised STG Decomposition
ACSD '06 Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design
On the models for designing VLSI asynchronous digital systems
Integration, the VLSI Journal
CASCADE: a tool kernel supporting a comprehensive design method for asynchronous controllers
ICATPN'00 Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Application and theory of petri nets
Component refinement and CSC solving for STG decomposition
FOSSACS'05 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Signal Transition Graphs (STGs) are a version of Petri nets for the specification of asynchronous circuit behaviour. It has been suggested to decompose such a specification as a first step; this leads to a modular implementation, which can support circuit synthesis by possibly avoiding state explosion or allowing the use of library elements. In a previous paper, the originalmethod was extended and shown to bemuchmore generally applicable than known before. But further extensions are necessary, and some are presented in this paper. In particular, to avoid dynamic auto-conflicts, the previous paper insisted on avoiding structural autoconflicts, which is too restrictive; as a main contribution, we show how to work with the latter type of auto-conflicts. This extension makes it necessary to restructure presentation and correctness proof of the decomposition algorithm.