SFM-11:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 2011
|
|
- Helena Ellis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SFM-:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 20 EU-FP7: CONNECT LSCITS/PSS VERIWARE
2 Part 3 Markov decision processes
3 Overview Lectures and 2: Introduction 2 Discrete-time Markov chains 3 Markov decision processes 4 Compositional probabilistic verification Course materials available here: lecture slides, reference list, tutorial chapter, lab session
4 Probabilistic models Fully probabilistic Nondeterministic Discrete time Discrete-time Markov chains (DTMCs) Markov decision processes (MDPs) (probabilistic automata) Continuous time Continuous-time Markov chains (CTMCs) Probabilistic timed automata (PTAs) CTMDPs/IMCs
5 Overview (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) Adversaries & probability spaces Properties of MDPs: The temporal logic PCTL PCTL model checking for MDPs Case study: Firewire root contention
6 Recap: Discrete-time Markov chains Discrete-time Markov chains (DTMCs) state-transition systems augmented with probabilities Formally: DTMC D = (S, s init, P, L) where: S is a set of states and s init S is the initial state P : S S [0,] is the transition probability matrix L : S 2 AP labels states with atomic propositions define a probability space Pr s over paths Path s Properties of DTMCs can be captured by the logic PCTL e.g. send P 0.95 [ F deliver ] key question: what is the probability of reaching states T S from state s? reduces to graph analysis + linear equation system s {try} s 0 s s 3 {succ} {fail}
7 Nondeterminism Some aspects of a system may not be probabilistic and should not be modelled probabilistically; for example: Concurrency - scheduling of parallel components e.g. randomised distributed algorithms - multiple probabilistic processes operating asynchronously Underspecification - unknown model parameters e.g. a probabilistic communication protocol designed for message propagation delays of between d min and d max Unknown environments e.g. probabilistic security protocols - unknown adversary
8 Markov decision processes Markov decision processes (MDPs) extension of DTMCs which allow nondeterministic choice Like DTMCs: discrete set of states representing possible configurations of the system being modelled transitions between states occur in discrete time-steps Probabilities and nondeterminism in each state, a nondeterministic choice between several discrete probability distributions over successor states s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 s {heads} s 3 {tails} a a
9 Markov decision processes Formally, an MDP M is a tuple (S,s init,α,δ,l) where: S is a set of states ( state space ) s init S is the initial state α is an alphabet of action labels δ S α Dist(S) is the transition probability relation, where Dist(S) is the set of all discrete probability distributions over S L : S 2 AP is a labelling with atomic propositions s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 s {heads} s 3 {tails} a a Notes: we also abuse notation and use δ as a function i.e. δ : S 2 α Dist(S) where δ(s) = { (a,µ) (s,a,µ) δ } we assume δ (s) is always non-empty, i.e. no deadlocks MDPs, here, are identical to probabilistic automata [Segala]
10 Simple MDP example A simple communication protocol after one step, process starts trying to send a message then, a nondeterministic choice between: (a) waiting a step because the channel is unready; (b) sending the message if the latter, with probability 0.99 send successfully and stop and with probability 0.0, message sending fails, restart restart {fail} {try} 0.0 s 2 s 0 start s send 0.99 s 3 stop wait {succ}
11 Example - Parallel composition Asynchronous parallel composition of two 3-state DTMCs t 0 t t 2 Action labels omitted here s 0 s 0 t 0 s 0 t s 0 t 2 s s t 0 s t s t 2 s 2 s 2 t 0 s 2 t s 2 t 2
12 Paths and probabilities A (finite or infinite) path through an MDP M is a sequence of states and action/distribution pairs e.g. s 0 (a 0,µ 0 )s (a,µ )s 2 such that (a i,µ i ) δ(s i ) and µ i (s i+ ) > 0 for all i 0 represents an execution (i.e. one possible behaviour) of the system which the MDP is modelling note that a path resolves both types of choices: nondeterministic and probabilistic Path M,s (or just Path s ) is the set of all infinite paths starting from state s in MDP M; the set of finite paths is PathFin s To consider the probability of some behaviour of the MDP first need to resolve the nondeterministic choices which results in a DTMC for which we can define a probability measure over paths
13 Overview (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) Adversaries & probability spaces Properties of MDPs: The temporal logic PCTL PCTL model checking for MDPs Case study: Firewire root contention
14 Adversaries An adversary resolves nondeterministic choice in an MDP also known as schedulers, strategies or policies Formally: an adversary σ of an MDP is a function mapping every finite path ω = s 0 (a 0,µ 0 )s...s n to an element of δ(s n ) Adversary σ restricts the MDP to certain paths Path σ s Path σ s and PathFin σ s PathFin σ s Adversary σ induces a probability measure Pr σ s over paths constructed through an infinite state DTMC (PathFin sσ, s, P sσ ) states of the DTMC are the finite paths of σ starting in state s initial state is s (the path starting in s of length 0) P σ s (ω,ω )=µ(s) if ω = ω(a,µ)s and σ(ω)=(a,µ) P σ s (ω,ω )=0 otherwise
15 Adversaries - Examples Consider the simple MDP below note that s is the only state for which δ(s) > i.e. s is the only state for which an adversary makes a choice let µ b and µ c denote the probability distributions associated with actions b and c in state s Adversary σ picks action c the first time σ (s 0 s )=(c,µ c ) Adversary σ 2 picks action b the first time, then c s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 σ 2 (s 0 s )=(b,µ b ), σ 2 (s 0 s s )=(c,µ c ), σ 2 (s 0 s s 0 s )=(c,µ c ) s {heads} s 3 {tails} a a
16 Adversaries - Examples Fragment of DTMC for adversary σ σ picks action c the first time {heads} s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 s s 3 {tails} a a s 0 s 0 s s 0 s s 2 s 0 s s 2 s 2 s 0 s s 3 s 0 s s 3 s 3
17 Adversaries - Examples Fragment of DTMC for adversary σ 2 σ 2 picks action b, then c s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 s {heads} s 3 {tails} a a s 0 s s 0 s s 2 s 0 s 0 s 0.7 s 0 s s 0 s 0 s s 0 s s 0 s s 0 s s s 0 s s s 2 s 0 s s s 2 s 2 s 0 s s s 0 s s s 3 s 0 s s s 3 s 3
18 Memoryless adversaries Memoryless adversaries always pick same choice in a state also known as: positional, simple, Markov formally, for adversary σ: σ(s 0 (a 0,µ 0 )s...s n ) depends only on s n resulting DTMC can be mapped to a S -state DTMC From previous example: adversary σ (picks c in s ) is memoryless, σ 2 is not {heads} {heads} s 0 c {init} a s b 0.3 s s 3 {tails} a a σ s 0 c {init} a s 2 s s 3 {tails} a a
19 Overview (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) Adversaries & probability spaces Properties of MDPs: The temporal logic PCTL PCTL model checking for MDPs Case study: Firewire root contention
20 PCTL Temporal logic for properties of MDPs (and DTMCs) extension of (non-probabilistic) temporal logic CTL key addition is probabilistic operator P quantitative extension of CTL s A and E operators PCTL syntax: φ ::= true a φ φ φ P ~p [ ψ ] (state formulas) ψ ::= X φ φ U k φ φ U φ (path formulas) where a is an atomic proposition, used to identify states of interest, p [0,] is a probability, ~ {<,>,, }, k N Example: send P 0.95 [ true U 0 deliver ]
21 PCTL semantics for MDPs PCTL formulas interpreted over states of an MDP s φ denotes φ is true in state s or satisfied in state s Semantics of (non-probabilistic) state formulas: for a state s of the MDP (S,s init,α,δ,l): s a a L(s) s φ φ 2 s φ and s φ 2 s φ s φ is false Semantics of path formulas: for a path ω = s 0 (a 0,µ 0 )s (a,µ )s 2 in the MDP: ω X φ s φ ω φ U k φ 2 i k such that s i φ 2 and j<i, s j φ ω φ U φ 2 k 0 such that ω φ U k φ 2
22 PCTL semantics for MDPs Semantics of the probabilistic operator P can only define probabilities for a specific adversary σ s P ~p [ ψ ] means the probability, from state s, that ψ is true for an outgoing path satisfies ~p for all adversaries σ formally s P ~p [ ψ ] Pr sσ (ψ) ~ p for all adversaries σ where we use Pr sσ (ψ) to denote Pr s σ { ω Path s σ ω ψ } s ψ ψ Pr sσ (ψ) ~ p Some equivalences: F φ φ true U φ (eventually, future ) G φ φ (F φ) (always, globally )
23 Minimum and maximum probabilities Letting: Pr s max (ψ) = sup σ Pr sσ (ψ) Pr s min (ψ) = inf σ Pr sσ (ψ) We have: if ~ {,>}, then s P ~p [ ψ ] Pr s min (ψ) ~ p if ~ {<, }, then s P ~p [ ψ ] Pr s max (ψ) ~ p Model checking P ~p [ ψ ] reduces to the computation over all adversaries of either: the minimum probability of ψ holding the maximum probability of ψ holding Crucial result for model checking PCTL on MDPs memoryless adversaries suffice, i.e. there are always memoryless adversaries σ min and σ max for which: Pr s σmin(ψ) = Pr s min (ψ) and Pr s σmax(ψ) = Pr s min (ψ)
24 Quantitative properties For PCTL properties with P as the outermost operator quantitative form (two types): P min=? [ ψ ] and P max=? [ ψ ] i.e. what is the minimum/maximum probability (over all adversaries) that path formula ψ is true? corresponds to an analysis of best-case or worst-case behaviour of the system model checking is no harder since compute the values of Pr s min (ψ) or Pr s max (ψ) anyway useful to spot patterns/trends Example: CSMA/CD protocol min/max probability that a message is sent within the deadline
25 Other classes of adversary A more general semantics for PCTL over MDPs parameterise by a class of adversaries Adv Only change is: s Adv P ~p [ψ] Pr s σ (ψ) ~ p for all adversaries σ Adv Original semantics obtained by taking Adv to be the set of all adversaries for the MDP Alternatively, take Adv to be the set of all fair adversaries path fairness: if a state is occurs on a path infinitely often, then each non-deterministic choice occurs infinite often see e.g. [BK98]
26 Some real PCTL examples Byzantine agreement protocol P min=? [ F (agreement rounds 2) ] what is the minimum probability that agreement is reached within two rounds? CSMA/CD communication protocol P max=? [ F collisions=k ] what is the maximum probability of k collisions? Self-stabilisation protocols P min=? [ F t stable ] what is the minimum probability of reaching a stable state within k steps?
27 Overview (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) Adversaries & probability spaces Properties of MDPs: The temporal logic PCTL PCTL model checking for MDPs Case study: Firewire root contention
28 PCTL model checking for MDPs Algorithm for PCTL model checking [BdA95] inputs: MDP M=(S,s init,α,δ,l), PCTL formula φ output: Sat(φ) = { s S s φ } = set of states satisfying φ Basic algorithm same as PCTL model checking for DTMCs proceeds by induction on parse tree of φ non-probabilistic operators (true, a,, ) straightforward Only need to consider P ~p [ ψ ] formulas reduces to computation of Pr s min (ψ) or Pr s max (ψ) for all s S dependent on whether ~ {,>} or ~ {<, } these slides cover the case Pr s min (φ U φ 2 ), i.e. ~ {,>} case for maximum probabilities is very similar next (X φ) and bounded until (φ U k φ 2 ) are straightforward extensions of the DTMC case
29 PCTL until for MDPs Computation of probabilities Pr min s (φ U φ 2 ) for all s S First identify all states where the probability is or 0 precomputation algorithms, yielding sets S yes, S no Then compute (min) probabilities for remaining states (S? ) either: solve linear programming problem or: approximate with an iterative solution method or: use policy iteration Example: P p [ F a ] P p [ true U a ] {a} s 0.4 s 2 s s
30 PCTL until - Precomputation Identify all states where Pr min s (φ U φ 2 ) is or 0 S yes = Sat(P [ φ U φ 2 ]), S no = Sat( P >0 [ φ U φ 2 ]) Two graph-based precomputation algorithms: algorithm ProbA computes S yes for all adversaries the probability of satisfying φ U φ 2 is algorithm Prob0E computes S no there exists an adversary for which the probability is 0 {a} S yes = Sat(P [ F a ]) Example: P p [ F a ] 0.4 s s 2 0. s s 3 S no = Sat( P >0 [ F a ])
31 Method - Linear programming Probabilities Pr s min (φ U φ 2 ) for remaining states in the set S? = S \ (S yes S no ) can be obtained as the unique solution of the following linear programming (LP) problem: s S? maximize x s subject to the constraints : x s µ(s' ) x s' + µ(s' ) s' S? s' S yes for all s S? and for all (a,µ) δ(s) Simple case of a more general problem known as the stochastic shortest path problem [BT9] This can be solved with standard techniques e.g. Simplex, ellipsoid method, branch-and-cut
32 Example - PCTL until (LP) {a} s 0.4 s 2 0. S yes Let x i = Pr s (F a) imin S yes : x 2 =, S no : x 3 =0 For S? = {x 0, x } : Maximise x 0 +x subject to constraints: x 0 x s s 3 S no x x 0 + x 0. x 0 + x + 0.4
33 Example - PCTL until (LP) {a} s 0.4 s 2 0. S yes Let x i = Pr s (F a) imin S yes : x 2 =, S no : x 3 =0 For S? = {x 0, x } : Maximise x 0 +x subject to constraints: x 0 x s s 3 S no x 0 2/3 x 0.2 x x x x x 0 x 0.8 x 0 2/3 x 0.2 x x /3 x x 0
34 Example - PCTL until (LP) {a} s 0.4 s 2 0. S yes Let x i = Pr s (F a) imin S yes : x 2 =, S no : x 3 =0 For S? = {x 0, x } : Maximise x 0 +x subject to constraints: x 0 x s s 3 S no x 0 2/3 x 0.2 x x 0.8 max Solution: (x 0, x ) = (2/3, 4/5) x 0 0 x 0 0 2/3
35 Example - PCTL until (LP) {a} s 0.4 s 2 0. S yes Let x i = Pr s (F a) imin S yes : x 2 =, S no : x 3 =0 For S? = {x 0, x } : Maximise x 0 +x subject to constraints: x 0 x s s 3 S no x 0 2/3 x 0.2 x x 0.2 x x 0 x x 0 2/3 x 0.8 max x 0 0 x 0 0 2/3 Two memoryless adversaries
36 Method 2 Value iteration For probabilities Pr s min (φ U φ 2 ) it can be shown that: Pr s min (φ U φ 2 ) = lim n x s (n) where: x s (n) = min (a,µ) Steps(s) if s S yes 0 if s S no 0 if s S? and n = 0 (n ) µ(s' ) x s' if s S? and n > 0 s' S This forms the basis for an (approximate) iterative solution iterations terminated when solution converges sufficiently
37 Example - PCTL until (value iteration) {a} s 0.4 s 2 0. S yes Compute: Pr s (F a) imin S yes = {x 2 }, S no ={x 3 }, S? = {x 0, x } [ x (n) 0,x (n),x (n) 2,x (n) 3 ] n=0: [ 0, 0,, 0 ] s s 3 S no n=: [ min(0, ), ,, 0 ] = [ 0, 0.4,, 0 ] n=2: [ min(0.4, ), ,, 0 ] = [ 0.4, 0.6,, 0 ] n=3:
38 Example - PCTL until (value iteration) {a} s 0.4 s 2 s s 3 S yes S no [ x (n) 0,x (n),x (n) 2,x (n) 3 ] n=0: [ , ,, 0 ] n=: [ , ,, 0 ] n=2: [ , ,, 0 ] n=3: [ , ,, 0 ] n=4: [ , ,, 0 ] n=5: [ , ,, 0 ] n=6: [ , ,, 0 ] n=7: [ , ,, 0 ] n=8: [ , ,, 0 ] n=9: [ , ,, 0 ] n=20: [ , ,, 0 ] n=2: [ , ,, 0 ] [ 2/3, 4/5,, 0 ]
39 Example - Value iteration + LP [ x 0 (n),x (n),x 2 (n),x 3 (n) ] x n=0: [ , ,, 0 ] n=: [ , ,, 0 ] n=2: [ , ,, 0 ] n=3: [ , ,, 0 ] n=4: [ , ,, 0 ] n=5: [ , ,, 0 ] n=6: [ , ,, 0 ] n=7: [ , ,, 0 ] n=8: [ , ,, 0 ] n=9: [ , ,, 0 ] 0 0 2/3 x 0 n=20: [ , ,, 0 ] n=2: [ , ,, 0 ] [ 2/3, 4/5,, 0 ]
40 Method 3 - Policy iteration Value iteration: iterates over (vectors of) probabilities Policy iteration: iterates over adversaries ( policies ). Start with an arbitrary (memoryless) adversary σ 2. Compute the reachability probabilities Pr σ (F a) for σ 3. Improve the adversary in each state 4. Repeat 2/3 until no change in adversary Termination: finite number of memoryless adversaries improvement in (minimum) probabilities each time
41 Method 3 - Policy iteration. Start with an arbitrary (memoryless) adversary σ pick an element of δ(s) for each state s S 2. Compute the reachability probabilities Pr σ (F a) for σ probabilistic reachability on a DTMC i.e. solve linear equation system 3. Improve the adversary in each state σ'(s) = argmin µ(s' ) Pr σ s' (F a) (a,µ) δ(s) s' S 4. Repeat 2/3 until no change in adversary
42 Example - Policy iteration {a} S yes Arbitrary adversary σ: 0.4 s s 2 0. Compute: Pr σ (F a) Let x i = Pr s (F a) iσ x 2 =, x 3 =0 and: s s 3 S no x 0 = x x = 0. x 0 + x Solution: Pr σ (F a) = [,,, 0 ] Refine σ in state s 0 : min{(), ()+0.25(0)+0.25()} = min{, 0.75} = 0.75
43 Example - Policy iteration {a} S yes Refined adversary σ : 0.4 s s 2 s s 3 S no Compute: Pr σ (F a) Let x i = Pr s (F a) iσ x 2 =, x 3 =0 and: x 0 = 0.25 x 0 + x = 0. x 0 + x Solution: Pr σ (F a) = [ 2/3, 4/5,, 0 ] This is optimal
44 Example - Policy iteration {a} S yes 0.4 s s 2 0. s s 3 S no x x = 0.2 x σ σ x 0 = x x 0 = 2/3 x 0 0 x 0 0 2/3
45 PCTL model checking - Summary Computation of set Sat(Φ) for MDP M and PCTL formula Φ recursive descent of parse tree combination of graph algorithms, numerical computation Probabilistic operator P: X Φ : one matrix-vector multiplication, O( S 2 ) Φ U k Φ 2 : k matrix-vector multiplications, O(k S 2 ) Φ U Φ 2 : linear programming problem, polynomial in S (assuming use of linear programming) Complexity: linear in Φ and polynomial in S S is states in MDP, assume δ(s) is constant
46 Costs and rewards for MDPs We can augment MDPs with rewards (or, conversely, costs) real-valued quantities assigned to states and/or transitions these can have a wide range of possible interpretations Some examples: elapsed time, power consumption, size of message queue, number of messages successfully delivered, net profit Extend logic PCTL with R operator, for expected reward as for PCTL, either R ~r [ ], R min=? [ ] or R max=? [ ] Some examples: R min=? [ I =90 ], R max=? [ C 60 ], R max=? [ F end ] the minimum expected queue size after exactly 90 seconds the maximum expected power consumption over one hour the maximum expected time for the algorithm to terminate
47 Overview (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) Adversaries & probability spaces Properties of MDPs: The temporal logic PCTL PCTL model checking for MDPs Case study: Firewire root contention
48 Case study: FireWire protocol FireWire (IEEE 394) high-performance serial bus for networking multimedia devices; originally by Apple "hot-pluggable" - add/remove devices at any time no requirement for a single PC (need acyclic topology) Root contention protocol leader election algorithm, when nodes join/leave symmetric, distributed protocol uses electronic coin tossing and timing delays nodes send messages: "be my parent" root contention: when nodes contend leadership random choice: "fast"/"slow" delay before retry
49 FireWire example
50 FireWire leader election R
51 FireWire root contention Root contention
52 FireWire root contention R Root contention
53 FireWire analysis Probabilistic model checking model constructed and analysed using PRISM timing delays taken from standard model includes: concurrency: messages between nodes and wires underspecification of delays (upper/lower bounds) max. model size: 70 million states Analysis: verified that root contention always resolved with probability investigated time taken for leader election and the effect of using biased coin based on a conjecture by Stoelinga
54 FireWire: Analysis results minimum probability of electing leader by time T
55 FireWire: Analysis results minimum probability of electing leader by time T (short wire length) Using a biased coin
56 FireWire: Analysis results maximum expected time to elect a leader (short wire length) Using a biased coin
57 FireWire: Analysis results maximum expected time to elect a leader (short wire length) Using a biased coin is beneficial!
58 Summary (Part 3) Markov decision processes (MDPs) extend DTMCs with nondeterminism to model concurrency, underspecification, Adversaries resolve nondeterminism in an MDP induce a probability space over paths consider minimum/maximum probabilities over all adversaries Property specifications PCTL: exactly same syntax as for DTMCs but quantify over all adversaries Model checking algorithms covered three basic techniques for MDPs: linear programming, value iteration, or policy iteration Next: Compositional probabilistic verification
Probabilistic model checking with PRISM
Probabilistic model checking with PRISM Marta Kwiatkowska Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford 4th SSFT, Menlo College, May 204 Part 2 Markov decision processes Overview (Part 2) Introduction
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 20 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview PCTL for MDPs syntax, semantics, examples PCTL model checking next, bounded
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview Temporal logic Non-probabilistic temporal logic CTL Probabilistic temporal
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Probabilistic model checking System Probabilistic model e.g. Markov chain Result 0.5
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview CSL model checking basic algorithm untimed properties time-bounded until the
More informationStochastic Model Checking
Stochastic Model Checking Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom Abstract. This tutorial presents
More informationPRISM An overview. automatic verification of systems with stochastic behaviour e.g. due to unreliability, uncertainty, randomisation,
PRISM An overview PRISM is a probabilistic model checker automatic verification of systems with stochastic behaviour e.g. due to unreliability, uncertainty, randomisation, Construction/analysis of probabilistic
More informationVariations on Itai-Rodeh Leader Election for Anonymous Rings and their Analysis in PRISM
Variations on Itai-Rodeh Leader Election for Anonymous Rings and their Analysis in PRISM Wan Fokkink (Vrije Universiteit, Section Theoretical Computer Science CWI, Embedded Systems Group Amsterdam, The
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking of Randomised Distributed Protocols using PRISM
Probabilistic Model Checking of Randomised Distributed Protocols using PRISM Marta Kwiatkowska University of Birmingham VPSM PhD School, Copenhagen, October 2006 Tutorial overview Part I - Probabilistic
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking and Strategy Synthesis for Robot Navigation
Probabilistic Model Checking and Strategy Synthesis for Robot Navigation Dave Parker University of Birmingham (joint work with Bruno Lacerda, Nick Hawes) AIMS CDT, Oxford, May 2015 Overview Probabilistic
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 20 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Next few lectures Today: Discrete-time Markov chains (continued) Mon 2pm: Probabilistic
More informationProbabilistic model checking with PRISM
Probabilistic model checking with PRISM Marta Kwiatkowska Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford 4th SSFT, Menlo College, May 2014 What is probabilistic model checking? Probabilistic model
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking (1)
Probabilistic Model Checking () Lecture # of GLOBAN Summerschool Joost-Pieter Katoen Software Modeling and Verification Group affiliated to University of Twente, Formal Methods and Tools Warsaw University,
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking of Deadline Properties in the IEEE 1394 FireWire Root Contention Protocol 1
Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of Computing Probabilistic Model Checking of Deadline Properties in the IEEE 1394 FireWire Root Contention Protocol 1 Marta Kwiatkowska a, Gethin Norman
More informationQuantitative analysis with the probabilistic model checker PRISM 1
QAPL 2005 Preliminary Version Quantitative analysis with the probabilistic model checker PRISM 1 Marta Kwiatkowska Gethin Norman David Parker 2 School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham Edgbaston,
More informationVerification and Control of Partially Observable Probabilistic Systems
Verification and Control of Partially Observable Probabilistic Systems Gethin Norman 1, David Parker 2, and Xueyi Zou 3 1 School of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, UK 2 School of Computer Science,
More informationChapter 13: Model Checking Linear-Time Properties of Probabilistic Systems
Chapter 13: Model Checking Linear-Time Properties of Probabilistic Systems Christel Baier, Marcus Größer, and Frank Ciesinski Technische Universität Dresden, Fakultät Informatik, Institut für Theoretische
More informationOutline. The Leader Election Protocol (IEEE 1394) IEEE 1394 High Performance Serial Bus (FireWire) Motivation. Background. Protocol Descriptions
Outline The Leader Election Protocol (IEEE 1394) Thai Son Hoang (inspired by the slides of Jean-Raymond Abrial) Department of Computer Science Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH Zürich)
More informationPolynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties and its Application to Cyber-Physical Systems
Polynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties and its Application to Cyber-Physical Systems Alberto Puggelli DREAM Seminar - November 26, 2013 Collaborators and PIs:
More informationQuantitative Verification and Synthesis of Attack-Defence Scenarios
Quantitative Verification and Synthesis of Attack-Defence Scenarios Zaruhi Aslanyan, Flemming Nielson DTU Compute Technical University of Denmark Denmark Email: {zaas,fnie}@dtu.dk David Parker School of
More informationModeling and Analysis of Probabilistic Timed Systems
Modeling and Analysis of Probabilistic Timed Systems Abhishek Dubey Derek Riley Sherif Abdelwahed Ted Bapty Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA Electrical
More informationLeveraging Weighted Automata in Compositional Reasoning about Concurrent Probabilistic Systems
Leveraging Weighted Automata in Compositional Reasoning about Concurrent Probabilistic Systems Fei He,2,3 Xiaowei Gao,2,3 Bow-Yaw Wang Lijun Zhang 5 Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science
More informationChapter 4: Computation tree logic
INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 4: Computation tree logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 CTL: a specification
More informationThe Leader Election Protocol (IEEE 1394)
The Leader Election Protocol (IEEE 1394) J.R. Abrial, D. Cansell, D. Méry July 2002 This Session - Background :-) - An informal presentation of the protocol :-) - Step by step formal design :- - Short
More informationA Counterexample Guided Abstraction-Refinement Framework for Markov Decision Processes
A Counterexample Guided Abstraction-Refinement Framework for Markov Decision Processes ROHIT CHADHA and MAHESH VISWANATHAN Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The main
More informationTemporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège
Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking Pierre Wolper Université de Liège 1 Topics to be covered Introducing explicit-state model checking Finite automata on infinite words Temporal Logics and
More informationA Brief Introduction to Model Checking
A Brief Introduction to Model Checking Jan. 18, LIX Page 1 Model Checking A technique for verifying finite state concurrent systems; a benefit on this restriction: largely automatic; a problem to fight:
More informationOn Model Checking Techniques for Randomized Distributed Systems. Christel Baier Technische Universität Dresden
On Model Checking Techniques for Randomized Distributed Systems Christel Baier Technische Universität Dresden joint work with Nathalie Bertrand Frank Ciesinski Marcus Größer / 6 biological systems, resilient
More informationOverview. overview / 357
Overview overview6.1 Introduction Modelling parallel systems Linear Time Properties Regular Properties Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) Computation Tree Logic syntax and semantics of CTL expressiveness of CTL
More informationAutomatic Verification of Real-time Systems with Discrete Probability Distributions
Automatic Verification of Real-time Systems with Discrete Probability Distributions Marta Kwiatkowska a, Gethin Norman a, Roberto Segala b and Jeremy Sproston a a University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15
More informationChapter 6: Computation Tree Logic
Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Outline We introduce Computation Tree Logic (CTL), a branching temporal logic for specifying system properties. A comparison
More informationAutomata-based Verification - III
COMP30172: Advanced Algorithms Automata-based Verification - III Howard Barringer Room KB2.20: email: howard.barringer@manchester.ac.uk March 2009 Third Topic Infinite Word Automata Motivation Büchi Automata
More informationProbabilistic model checking with PRISM
Probabilistic model checking with PRISM Marta Kwiatkowska Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford IMT, Lucca, May 206 Lecture plan Course slides and lab session http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/courses/imt6/
More informationFormal Verification via MCMAS & PRISM
Formal Verification via MCMAS & PRISM Hongyang Qu University of Sheffield 1 December 2015 Outline Motivation for Formal Verification Overview of MCMAS Overview of PRISM Formal verification It is a systematic
More informationReasoning about Time and Reliability
Reasoning about Time and Reliability Probabilistic CTL model checking Daniel Bruns Institut für theoretische Informatik Universität Karlsruhe 13. Juli 2007 Seminar Theorie und Anwendung von Model Checking
More informationTimo Latvala. March 7, 2004
Reactive Systems: Safety, Liveness, and Fairness Timo Latvala March 7, 2004 Reactive Systems: Safety, Liveness, and Fairness 14-1 Safety Safety properties are a very useful subclass of specifications.
More informationAlan Bundy. Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking
Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking Alan Bundy Lecture 9, page 1 Introduction So far we have looked at theorem proving Powerful, especially where good sets of rewrite rules or decision procedures have
More informationVerifying Randomized Distributed Algorithms with PRISM
Verifying Randomized Distributed Algorithms with PRISM Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom {M.Z.Kwiatkowska,G.Norman,D.A.Parker}@cs.bham.ac.uk
More informationQuantitative Verification: Models, Techniques and Tools
Quantitative Verification: Models, Techniques and Tools Marta Kwiatkowska Oxford University Computing Laboratory Parks Road, Oxford OX 3QD, UK mzk@comlab.ox.ac.uk ABSTRACT Automated verification is a technique
More informationTemporal & Modal Logic. Acronyms. Contents. Temporal Logic Overview Classification PLTL Syntax Semantics Identities. Concurrency Model Checking
Temporal & Modal Logic E. Allen Emerson Presenter: Aly Farahat 2/12/2009 CS5090 1 Acronyms TL: Temporal Logic BTL: Branching-time Logic LTL: Linear-Time Logic CTL: Computation Tree Logic PLTL: Propositional
More informationQuantitative Verification
Quantitative Verification Chapter 3: Markov chains Jan Křetínský Technical University of Munich Winter 207/8 / 84 Motivation 2 / 84 Example: Simulation of a die by coins Knuth & Yao die Simulating a Fair
More informationState Explosion in Almost-Sure Probabilistic Reachability
State Explosion in Almost-Sure Probabilistic Reachability François Laroussinie Lab. Spécification & Vérification, ENS de Cachan & CNRS UMR 8643, 61, av. Pdt. Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex France Jeremy Sproston
More information7. Queueing Systems. 8. Petri nets vs. State Automata
Petri Nets 1. Finite State Automata 2. Petri net notation and definition (no dynamics) 3. Introducing State: Petri net marking 4. Petri net dynamics 5. Capacity Constrained Petri nets 6. Petri net models
More informationComputation Tree Logic
Computation Tree Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE,
More informationFrom Liveness to Promptness
From Liveness to Promptness Orna Kupferman Hebrew University Nir Piterman EPFL Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University Abstract Liveness temporal properties state that something good eventually happens, e.g., every
More informationAnalysing Randomized Distributed Algorithms
Analysing Randomized Distributed Algorithms Gethin Norman School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom G.Norman@cs.bham.ac.uk Abstract. Randomization is of paramount
More informationChapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic
Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Spring 94 Outline We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.
More informationPolynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties
Polynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties Alberto Alessandro Angelo Puggelli Wenchao Li Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli Sanjit A. Seshia Electrical Engineering
More informationModelling and Analysis (and towards Synthesis)
Modelling and Analysis (and towards Synthesis) Marta Kwiatkowska Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford Dagstuhl meeting 15041, 19-23 rd Jan 2015 Outline Introduction The context: role of
More informationThe State Explosion Problem
The State Explosion Problem Martin Kot August 16, 2003 1 Introduction One from main approaches to checking correctness of a concurrent system are state space methods. They are suitable for automatic analysis
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking: Advances and Applications
Probabilistic Model Checking: Advances and Applications Dave Parker University of Birmingham Highlights 18, Berlin, September 2018 Overview Probabilistic model checking & PRISM Markov decision processes
More informationAGREEMENT PROBLEMS (1) Agreement problems arise in many practical applications:
AGREEMENT PROBLEMS (1) AGREEMENT PROBLEMS Agreement problems arise in many practical applications: agreement on whether to commit or abort the results of a distributed atomic action (e.g. database transaction)
More informationUsing first-order logic, formalize the following knowledge:
Probabilistic Artificial Intelligence Final Exam Feb 2, 2016 Time limit: 120 minutes Number of pages: 19 Total points: 100 You can use the back of the pages if you run out of space. Collaboration on the
More informationAutomata-based Verification - III
CS3172: Advanced Algorithms Automata-based Verification - III Howard Barringer Room KB2.20/22: email: howard.barringer@manchester.ac.uk March 2005 Third Topic Infinite Word Automata Motivation Büchi Automata
More informationLecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL)
Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 1 Programme for the upcoming lectures Introducing CTL Basic Algorithms for CTL CTL and Fairness; computing strongly connected components Basic Decision Diagrams
More informationModel Checking & Program Analysis
Model Checking & Program Analysis Markus Müller-Olm Dortmund University Overview Introduction Model Checking Flow Analysis Some Links between MC and FA Conclusion Apology for not giving proper credit to
More informationIntroduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either
Introduction to Temporal Logic The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Desired properites. Often liveness properties like In every infinite run action
More informationCourse 16:198:520: Introduction To Artificial Intelligence Lecture 13. Decision Making. Abdeslam Boularias. Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Course 16:198:520: Introduction To Artificial Intelligence Lecture 13 Decision Making Abdeslam Boularias Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1 / 45 Overview We consider probabilistic temporal models where the
More informationFinite-State Model Checking
EECS 219C: Computer-Aided Verification Intro. to Model Checking: Models and Properties Sanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley Finite-State Model Checking G(p X q) Temporal logic q p FSM Model Checker Yes,
More informationPetri nets. s 1 s 2. s 3 s 4. directed arcs.
Petri nets Petri nets Petri nets are a basic model of parallel and distributed systems (named after Carl Adam Petri). The basic idea is to describe state changes in a system with transitions. @ @R s 1
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 22 Jul 2017
Tableaux for Policy Synthesis for MDPs with PCTL* Constraints Peter Baumgartner, Sylvie Thiébaux, and Felipe Trevizan Data61/CSIRO and Research School of Computer Science, ANU, Australia Email: first.last@anu.edu.au
More informationQuantitative Verification: Models, Techniques and Tools
Quantitative Verification: Models, Techniques and Tools Marta Kwiatkowska Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford http://web.comlab comlab.ox.ac..ox.ac.uk/oucl/people/marta.kwiatkowska.html Overview
More informationHIGH-LEVEL COUNTEREXAMPLES FOR PROBABILISTIC AUTOMATA
HIGH-LEVEL COUNTEREXAMPLES FOR PROBABILISTIC AUTOMATA RALF WIMMER 1, NILS JANSEN 2, ERIKA ÁBRAHÁM2, AND JOOST-PIETER KATOEN 2 1 Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany e-mail address: wimmer@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
More informationCompositional Verification of Probabilistic Systems using Learning
Compositional Verification of Probabilistic Systems using Learning Lu Feng, Marta Kwiatkowska, David Parker Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD Email: {lu.feng, marta.kwiatkowska,
More informationDiscrete Event Systems Exam
Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory TEC, NSG, DISCO HS 2016 Prof. L. Thiele, Prof. L. Vanbever, Prof. R. Wattenhofer Discrete Event Systems Exam Friday, 3 rd February 2017, 14:00 16:00. Do not
More informationReachability in Continuous-Time Markov Reward Decision Processes
Reachability in Continuous-Time Markov Reward Decision Processes Christel Baier 1 Boudewijn R. Haverkort 2 Holger Hermanns 3 Joost-Pieter Katoen 4 1 Faculty of Computer Science Technical University of
More informationModel Checking Discounted Temporal Properties
Model Checking Discounted Temporal Properties Luca de Alfaro a Marco Faella a Thomas A. Henzinger b,c Rupak Majumdar d Mariëlle Stoelinga e a CE, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA b EECS, University
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Non-deterministic state model. Model for non-deterministic problems. Solutions. Blai Bonet
Artificial Intelligence Blai Bonet Non-deterministic state model Universidad Simón Boĺıvar, Caracas, Venezuela Model for non-deterministic problems Solutions State models with non-deterministic actions
More informationPolynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties
Polynomial-Time Verification of PCTL Properties of MDPs with Convex Uncertainties Alberto Alessandro Angelo Puggelli Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley Technical
More informationT Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL
Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 1 T-79.186 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL Spring 2005, Lecture 4 January 31, 2005 Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 2 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most
More informationCONTROLLER DEPENDABILITY ANALYSIS BY PROBABILISTIC MODEL CHECKING. Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman and David Parker 1
CONTROLLER DEPENDABILITY ANALYSIS BY PROBABILISTIC MODEL CHECKING Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman and David Parker 1 School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
More informationFirst-order resolution for CTL
First-order resolution for Lan Zhang, Ullrich Hustadt and Clare Dixon Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK {Lan.Zhang, U.Hustadt, CLDixon}@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract
More informationPlanning Under Uncertainty II
Planning Under Uncertainty II Intelligent Robotics 2014/15 Bruno Lacerda Announcement No class next Monday - 17/11/2014 2 Previous Lecture Approach to cope with uncertainty on outcome of actions Markov
More informationAutomata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems
Automata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems Radu Iosif Verimag/CNRS (Grenoble, France) Thanks to Tom Henzinger (IST, Austria), Barbara Jobstmann (CNRS, Grenoble) and Doron Peled (Bar-Ilan University,
More informationLecture 3: Markov Decision Processes
Lecture 3: Markov Decision Processes Joseph Modayil 1 Markov Processes 2 Markov Reward Processes 3 Markov Decision Processes 4 Extensions to MDPs Markov Processes Introduction Introduction to MDPs Markov
More informationSymmetry Reduction for Probabilistic Model Checking
Symmetry Reduction for Probabilistic Model Checking Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom {mzk,gxn,dxp}@cs.bham.ac.uk
More informationModel for reactive systems/software
Temporal Logics CS 5219 Abhik Roychoudhury National University of Singapore The big picture Software/ Sys. to be built (Dream) Properties to Satisfy (caution) Today s lecture System Model (Rough Idea)
More informationStochastic Games with Time The value Min strategies Max strategies Determinacy Finite-state games Cont.-time Markov chains
Games with Time Finite-state Masaryk University Brno GASICS 00 /39 Outline Finite-state stochastic processes. Games over event-driven stochastic processes. Strategies,, determinacy. Existing results for
More informationTopics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017
Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017 Last time LTL Syntax ϕ ::= true a ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 a AP. ϕ def = trueu ϕ ϕ def = ϕ g intuitive meaning of and is obt Limitations of LTL pay pay τ τ soda
More informationChapter 3: Linear temporal logic
INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 3: Linear temporal logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 LTL: a specification
More informationComputation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms
Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms Martin Fränzle Carl von Ossietzky Universität Dpt. of Computing Science Res. Grp. Hybride Systeme Oldenburg, Germany 02917: CTL & Model Checking
More informationOn simulations and bisimulations of general flow systems
On simulations and bisimulations of general flow systems Jen Davoren Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering The University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA and Paulo Tabuada Department of Electrical
More informationMODEL-CHECKING IN DENSE REAL-TIME SHANT HARUTUNIAN
MODEL-CHECKING IN DENSE REAL-TIME SHANT HARUTUNIAN 1. Introduction These slides are for a talk based on the paper Model-Checking in Dense Real- Time, by Rajeev Alur, Costas Courcoubetis, and David Dill.
More informationComplexity Issues in Automated Addition of Time-Bounded Liveness Properties 1
Complexity Issues in Automated Addition of Time-Bounded Liveness Properties 1 Borzoo Bonakdarpour and Sandeep S. Kulkarni Software Engineering and Network Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science
More informationVerification of Probabilistic Systems with Faulty Communication
Verification of Probabilistic Systems with Faulty Communication P. A. Abdulla 1, N. Bertrand 2, A. Rabinovich 3, and Ph. Schnoebelen 2 1 Uppsala University, Sweden 2 LSV, ENS de Cachan, France 3 Tel Aviv
More informationDistributed Optimization. Song Chong EE, KAIST
Distributed Optimization Song Chong EE, KAIST songchong@kaist.edu Dynamic Programming for Path Planning A path-planning problem consists of a weighted directed graph with a set of n nodes N, directed links
More informationA note on the attractor-property of infinite-state Markov chains
A note on the attractor-property of infinite-state Markov chains Christel Baier a, Nathalie Bertrand b, Philippe Schnoebelen b a Universität Bonn, Institut für Informatik I, Germany b Lab. Specification
More informationCS145: Probability & Computing Lecture 24: Algorithms
CS145: Probability & Computing Lecture 24: Algorithms Instructor: Eli Upfal Brown University Computer Science Figure credits: Bertsekas & Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Probability, 2008 Pitman, Probability,
More informationGuest lecturer: Prof. Mark Reynolds, The University of Western Australia
Università degli studi di Udine Corso per il dottorato di ricerca: Temporal Logics: Satisfiability Checking, Model Checking, and Synthesis January 2017 Lecture 01, Part 02: Temporal Logics Guest lecturer:
More informationStochastic, Hybrid and Real-Time Systems: From Foundations To Applications with Modest
LCCC WORKSHOP 2013, LUND Stochastic, Hybrid and Real-Time Systems: From Foundations To Applications with Modest, Arnd Hartmanns Saarland University, Germany based on joint work with Jonathan Bogdoll, Henrik
More informationTimo Latvala. February 4, 2004
Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L Timo Latvala February 4, 2004 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L 8-1 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most widely used specification formalism
More informationCombining Shared Coin Algorithms
Combining Shared Coin Algorithms James Aspnes Hagit Attiya Keren Censor Abstract This paper shows that shared coin algorithms can be combined to optimize several complexity measures, even in the presence
More informationA Probabilistic Extension of UML Statecharts
A Probabilistic Extension of UML Statecharts Specification and Verification David N. Jansen 1, Holger Hermanns 2, and Joost-Pieter Katoen 2 1 Universiteit Twente, Information Systems Group. 2 Universiteit
More informationProbabilistic verification and approximation schemes
Probabilistic verification and approximation schemes Richard Lassaigne Equipe de Logique mathématique, CNRS-Université Paris 7 Joint work with Sylvain Peyronnet (LRDE/EPITA & Equipe de Logique) Plan 1
More informationNetwork Algorithms and Complexity (NTUA-MPLA) Reliable Broadcast. Aris Pagourtzis, Giorgos Panagiotakos, Dimitris Sakavalas
Network Algorithms and Complexity (NTUA-MPLA) Reliable Broadcast Aris Pagourtzis, Giorgos Panagiotakos, Dimitris Sakavalas Slides are partially based on the joint work of Christos Litsas, Aris Pagourtzis,
More informationMotivation for introducing probabilities
for introducing probabilities Reaching the goals is often not sufficient: it is important that the expected costs do not outweigh the benefit of reaching the goals. 1 Objective: maximize benefits - costs.
More informationModal and Temporal Logics
Modal and Temporal Logics Colin Stirling School of Informatics University of Edinburgh July 23, 2003 Why modal and temporal logics? 1 Computational System Modal and temporal logics Operational semantics
More informationDecentralized Control of Discrete Event Systems with Bounded or Unbounded Delay Communication 1
Decentralized Control of Discrete Event Systems with Bounded or Unbounded Delay Communication 1 Stavros Tripakis 2 VERIMAG Technical Report TR-2004-26 November 2004 Abstract We introduce problems of decentralized
More informationIntroduction to Model Checking. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras
Introduction to Model Checking Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras How good can you fight bugs? Comprising of three parts Formal Verification techniques consist of three parts: 1. A framework for modeling
More informationComputing Laboratory STOCHASTIC GAMES FOR VERIFICATION OF PROBABILISTIC TIMED AUTOMATA. Marta Kwiatkowska Gethin Norman David Parker CL-RR-09-05
Computing Laboratory STOCHASTIC AMES FOR VERIFICATION OF PROBABILISTIC TIMED AUTOMATA Marta Kwiatkowska ethin Norman David Parker CL-RR-09-05 Oxford University Computing Laboratory Wolfson Building, Parks
More information