Simulation Games Michael Maurer. Overview Motivation 4 Different (Bi)simulation relations and their rules to determine the winner Problem with delayed.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recognising Languages We will tackle the problem of defining languages by considering how we could recognise them. Problem: Is there a method of recognising.
Advertisements

Automata Theory Part 1: Introduction & NFA November 2002.
Black Box Checking Book: Chapter 9 Model Checking Finite state description of a system B. LTL formula. Translate into an automaton P. Check whether L(B)
Theory of Computing Lecture 23 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 8: Automata Theoretic Model Checking Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.
1 Fault Diagnosis for Timed Automata Stavros Tripakis VERIMAG.
1 Generalized Buchi automaton. 2 Reminder: Buchi automata A=  Alphabet (finite). S: States (finite).  : S x  x S ) S is the transition relation. I.
Game-theoretic simulation checking tool Peter Bulychev, Vladimir Zakharov, Igor Konnov Moscow State University.
Game-theoretic approach to the simulation checking problem Peter Bulychev Vladimir Zakharov Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Energy and Mean-Payoff Parity Markov Decision Processes Laurent Doyen LSV, ENS Cachan & CNRS Krishnendu Chatterjee IST Austria MFCS 2011.
Determinization of Büchi Automata
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
Progressively Finite Games
Computability and Complexity 5-1 Classifying Problems Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov.
Complexity 11-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Space Complexity.
Computability and Complexity 13-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov The Class NP.
Finite Automata Great Theoretical Ideas In Computer Science Anupam Gupta Danny Sleator CS Fall 2010 Lecture 20Oct 28, 2010Carnegie Mellon University.
Discrete Abstractions of Hybrid Systems Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, Gerardo Lafferriere and George J. Pappas.
1 Finite Model Theory Lecture 13 FO k, L k 1, ,L  1, , and Pebble Games.
Witness and Counterexample Li Tan Oct. 15, 2002.
Review of the automata-theoretic approach to model-checking.
79 Regular Expression Regular expressions over an alphabet  are defined recursively as follows. (1) Ø, which denotes the empty set, is a regular expression.
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 4: Automata Theory II (DFA = NFA, Regular Language)
Witness and Counterexample Li Tan Oct. 15, 2002.
Theory of Computing Lecture 22 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Flavio Lerda 1 LTL Model Checking Flavio Lerda. 2 LTL Model Checking LTL –Subset of CTL* of the form: A f where f is a path formula LTL model checking.
Solving Games Without Determinization Nir Piterman École Polytechnique Fédéral de Lausanne (EPFL) Switzerland Joint work with Thomas A. Henzinger.
Theory of Computing Lecture 19 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Regular Languages A language is regular over  if it can be built from ;, {  }, and { a } for every a 2 , using operators union ( [ ), concatenation.
PSPACE-Completeness Section 8.3 Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability.
15-820A 1 LTL to Büchi Automata Flavio Lerda A 2 LTL to Büchi Automata LTL Formulas Subset of CTL* –Distinct from CTL AFG p  LTL  f  CTL. f.
Lexical Analysis — Part II: Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved.
Basics of automata theory
Model Checking Lecture 3 Tom Henzinger. Model-Checking Problem I |= S System modelSystem property.
Lexical Analysis — Part II: Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions.
Algorithmic Software Verification III. Finite state games and pushdown automata.
Lexical Analysis Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions.
Games with Secure Equilibria Krishnendu Chatterjee (Berkeley) Thomas A. Henzinger (EPFL) Marcin Jurdzinski (Warwick)
Avoiding Determinization Orna Kupferman Hebrew University Joint work with Moshe Vardi.
Lecture 81 Regional Automaton CS 5270 Lecture 8. Lecture 82 What We Need to Do Problem: –We need to analyze the timed behavior of a TTS. –The timed behavior.
Regular Model Checking Made Simple and Efficient P. Abdulla, B. Jonsson, M. Nilsson and J. d’Orso Uppsala University.
Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #2 Rina Zviel-Girshin Leah Epstein Winter
Games, Logic and Automata Seminar Rotem Zach 1. Overview 2.
LTL Model Checking 张文辉
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
2G1516 Formal Methods2005 Mads Dam IMIT, KTH 1 CCS: Processes and Equivalences Mads Dam Reading: Peled 8.5.
CS 203: Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata
An Introduction to Rabin Automata Presented By: Tamar Aizikowitz Spring 2007 Automata Seminar.
Strings Basic data type in computational biology A string is an ordered succession of characters or symbols from a finite set called an alphabet Sequence.
Finite State Machines 1.Finite state machines with output 2.Finite state machines with no output 3.DFA 4.NDFA.
Presentation.  Julius Richard Büchi (1924–1984)  Swiss logician and mathematician.  He received his Dr. sc. nat. in 1950 at the ETH Zürich  Purdue.
Church’s Problem and a Tour through Automata Theory Wolfgang Thomas Pillars of Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
1 Chapter Constructing Efficient Finite Automata.
Algorithms for hard problems Automata and tree automata Juris Viksna, 2015.
Controller Synthesis For Timed Automata Authors : Eugene Asarin, Oded Maler, Amir Pnueli and Joseph Sifakis Yean-Ru Chen Embedded System Laboratory of.
Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #5 Rina Zviel-Girshin Leah Epstein Winter
1 Section 11.3 Constructing Efficient Finite Automata First we’ll see how to transform an NFA into a DFA. Then we’ll see how to transform a DFA into a.
Theory of Computational Complexity Yuji Ishikawa Avis lab. M1.
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation Decision Problems, Continued DFSMs.
Week 13 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Regular expressions.
PROPERTIES OF REGULAR LANGUAGES
فصل سوم The Church-Turing Thesis
Lexical Analysis — Part II: Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved.
Alternating tree Automata and Parity games
Lexical Analysis — Part II: Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved.
Lexical Analysis — Part II: Constructing a Scanner from Regular Expressions Copyright 2003, Keith D. Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon, all rights reserved.
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Presentation transcript:

Simulation Games Michael Maurer

Overview Motivation 4 Different (Bi)simulation relations and their rules to determine the winner Problem with delayed simulation Parity Games Construction of (Bi)simulations as Parity Games

Motivation Capability of mimicking the behavior of another automaton (structural similarities, language containment) Efficiently reducing the size of finite-state automata (known as quotienting)

Simulation Games 4 different Simulation Game Definitions for a given Büchi automaton A : 1) ordinary simulation game, 2) direct (strong) simulation game, 3) delayed simulation game, 4) fair simulation game,

Simulation Games Played by 2 players: Spoiler and Duplicator At the start: two pebbles (Red and Blue) are placed on two vertices q 0 and q’ 0 Spoiler chooses a transition and moves Red to q i+1 Duplicator also chooses a transition and moves Blue to q ‘ i+1 If Duplicator can‘t move, the game halts and Spoiler wins

Who will be the winner? Either the game halts, in which case Spoiler wins Or the game produces two infinite runs: and For each of the 4 simulation games there exist different rules to determine the winner

Rules for the winner Ordinary simulation:  Duplicator wins in any case  Fairness conditions are ignored Duplicator wins as long as the game does not halt Direct simulation:  D wins iff for all i, if then

Rules for the winner Delayed simulation:  D wins iff for all i, if then there exists j ≥ i such that Fair simulation:  D wins iff there are infinitely many j such that or only finitely many i such that  In other words: if there are infinitely many i such that, then there are also infinitely many j such that

Simulation Relation A state q‘ ordinary, direct, delayed, fair simulates a state q, if there is a winning strategy for D The simulation relation is denoted by, where * stands for one of the 4 simulations The relations are ordered by containment: (preorder) For di, de, f: if then

Bisimulation Games For all of the mentioned simulations corresponding notions of bisimulation via modification of the game S can choose in each round which pebble he will move and D has to respond with the other one Bisimulations define an equivalence relation

Bisimulation winning rules Fair: an accept state appears infinitely often on one of the 2 runs π and π‘ an accept state must appear infinitely often on the other as well Delayed: an accept state at position i of either run an accept state at j ≥ i of the other run Direct: an accept state at position i of either run an accept state at position i of both runs

Problem with delayed simulation Quotienting: states that simulate each other are merged Difficult to find a working definition of a simulation preserving quotient with respect to delayed simulation Not at all clear how such a quotient should be defined

Problem with delayed simulation Example for the quotienting problem: B accepts a ω, but A does not Removing transition (1‘,a,1‘) would provide a simulation-equivalent quotient for A ‘ 1‘ a b c b a b c Quotienting AB

Parity Games A parity game graph has two disjoint sets of vertices V 0 and V 1, their union is V It also has an edge set and a priority function that assigns a priority to each vertex Played by two players, Zero and One and the game starts by placing a pebble on

Parity Games Rule for moving the pebble: pebble on v i, Zero (One) moves the pebble to v i+1, such that If a player can not move, the other one wins Otherwise the game produces an infinite run Considering the minimum priority k π that occurs infinitely often in the run π; Zero wins, if k π is even, One otherwise

(Bi)Simulations from Parity Games Example: Parity game graph for the fair simulation game The set of vertices for Zero: The set of vertices for One: The set of the edges for Zero and One: The priority function:

(Bi)Simulations from Parity Games Example Büchi automaton: kjhjk V 0 f = {(2,1,a),(2,2,a),(2,3,a),(2,1,b),(2,2,b),(2,3,b),(2,1,c),(2,2,c),(2,3,c), (3,1,a),(3,2,a),(3,3,a)} Jhkjh V 1 f = {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3)} Hghjg Player 0 Player 1 E A f ={((2,1,a),(2,2)),((3,1,a),(3,2)),((2,2,b),(2,2)),((2,2,a),(2,3)),..} U {((1,1),(2,1,a)),((1,2),(2,2,a)),((2,2),(2,3,b)),..} 12 a c a b 3

(Bi)Simulations from Parity Games Example Büchi automaton: kjhjk p A f ((2,1,a)) = 2 ; p A f ((2,3,c)) = 0 ; p A f ((3,1)) = 1 ; p A f ((1,3)) = 0 ; 12 a c a b 3

(Bi)Simulations from Paritiy Games Parity Game constructed:  Zero has a winning strategy from (q,q’), iff q is fairly simulated by q’  Jurdzinkis algorithm as fast algorithm for computing fair (bi)simulation relations and delayed simulations  Other relations can be constructed from the fair simulation formulas (Handout)

References Carsten Fritz, Thomas Wilke: Simulation Relations for Alternating Parity Automata and Parity Games. DLT 2006, LNCS 4036, pp , Springer-Verlag (2006) Kousha Etessami, Thomas Wilke, Rebecca A. Schuller: Fair Simulation Relations, Parity Games and State Space Reduction for Büchi Automata. ICALP 2001, LNCS 2076, pp , Springer- Verlag (2001) Carsten Fritz: Simulation-Based Simplification of omega-Automata. PhD thesis, Technische Fakultät der Christian Albrecht Universität zu Kiel (2005) available at