Possibilistic and probabilistic abstraction-based model checking Michael Huth Computing Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Automated Theorem Proving Lecture 1. Program verification is undecidable! Given program P and specification S, does P satisfy S?
Advertisements

Model Checking Lecture 2. Three important decisions when choosing system properties: 1automata vs. logic 2branching vs. linear time 3safety vs. liveness.
Auto-Generation of Test Cases for Infinite States Reactive Systems Based on Symbolic Execution and Formula Rewriting Donghuo Chen School of Computer Science.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Model checking and refinement checking for modal transition systems and their cousins MTS meeting 2007 Adam Antonik & Michael.
Algorithmic Software Verification VII. Computation tree logic and bisimulations.
Introduction to Formal Methods for SW and HW Development 09: SAT Based Abstraction/Refinement in Model-Checking Roberto Sebastiani Based on work and slides.
Temporal Logic and the NuSMV Model Checker CS 680 Formal Methods Jeremy Johnson.
Hoare’s Correctness Triplets Dijkstra’s Predicate Transformers
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 11.
1 A Description Logic with Concrete Domains CS848 presentation Presenter: Yongjuan Zou.
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 13.
Chair of Software Engineering Software Verification Stephan van Staden Lecture 10: Model Checking.
Model Checking I What are LTL and CTL?. and or dreq q0 dack q0bar D D.
Luca de Alfaro Thomas A. Henzinger Ranjit Jhala UC Berkeley Compositional Methods for Probabilistic Systems.
Efficient Query Evaluation on Probabilistic Databases
Model Checking for Probabilistic Timed Systems Jeremy Sproston Università di Torino VOSS Dagstuhl seminar 9th December 2002.
A Hybridized Planner for Stochastic Domains Mausam and Daniel S. Weld University of Washington, Seattle Piergiorgio Bertoli ITC-IRST, Trento.
Discounting the Future in Systems Theory Chess Review May 11, 2005 Berkeley, CA Luca de Alfaro, UC Santa Cruz Tom Henzinger, UC Berkeley Rupak Majumdar,
EECS 20 Lecture 38 (April 27, 2001) Tom Henzinger Review.
1 Model Checking, Abstraction- Refinement, and Their Implementation Based on slides by: Orna Grumberg Presented by: Yael Meller June 2008.
Department of mathematics and computer science 1 of 21 Rob van Glabbeek (Sydney) Marc Voorhoeve (TUE) Liveness, Fairness and Impossible Futures.
Abstractions. Outline Informal intuition Why do we need abstraction? What is an abstraction and what is not an abstraction A framework for abstractions.
1 On Generating Safe Controllers for Discrete-Time Linear Systems By Adam Cataldo EE 290N Project UC Berkeley December 10, 2004 unsafe state disable this.
Metrics for real time probabilistic processes Radha Jagadeesan, DePaul University Vineet Gupta, Google Inc Prakash Panangaden, McGill University Josee.
Using 3-Valued Models in Abstraction-based Model Checking Seminar in Formal Verification Spring 2006 Presented by Alik Zamansky.
Lecture 4&5: Model Checking: A quick introduction Professor Aditya Ghose Director, Decision Systems Lab School of IT and Computer Science University of.
Branching Bisimulation Congruence for Probabilistic Transition Systems
07/06/98 知的インタフェース特論 1 Operational Semantics Again, the question? Operational Model = Labeled Transition System If P and Q yields a same LTS. How to define.
Probabilistic Verification of Discrete Event Systems Håkan L. S. Younes.
1 Ivan Lanese Computer Science Department University of Bologna Italy Concurrent and located synchronizations in π-calculus.
ESE601: Hybrid Systems Introduction to verification Spring 2006.
Computing Over­Approximations with Bounded Model Checking Daniel Kroening ETH Zürich.
Formal Verification of SpecC Programs using Predicate Abstraction Himanshu Jain Daniel Kroening Edmund Clarke Carnegie Mellon University.
Model Checking LTL over (discrete time) Controllable Linear System is Decidable P. Tabuada and G. J. Pappas Michael, Roozbeh Ph.D. Course November 2005.
3-Valued Abstractions of Games: Uncertainty, but with Precision Luca de Alfaro UC Santa Cruz Patrice Godefroid Bell Labs, Lucent. Radha Jagadeesan DePaul.
Antoine Girard VAL-AMS Project Meeting April 2007 Behavioral Metrics for Simulation-based Circuit Validation.
Planning and Verification for Stochastic Processes with Asynchronous Events Håkan L. S. Younes Carnegie Mellon University.
Model Checking Lecture 4 Tom Henzinger. Model-Checking Problem I |= S System modelSystem property.
Query Answering Based on the Modal Correspondence Theory Evgeny Zolin University of Manchester Manchester, UK
Hybrid automata and temporal logics
1 Bisimulations as a Technique for State Space Reductions.
I-Neighbourhood Abstraction in Graph Transformation Arend Rensink University of Twente Based on work with: Jörg Bauer, Iovka Boneva, Dino Distefano, Marcus.
CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 3: Fixpoints and Temporal Properties Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.
1 CSEP590 – Model Checking and Automated Verification Lecture outline for August 6, 2003.
MPRI 3 Dec 2007Catuscia Palamidessi 1 Why Probability and Nondeterminism? Concurrency Theory Nondeterminism –Scheduling within parallel composition –Unknown.
Verification & Validation By: Amir Masoud Gharehbaghi
2G1516 Formal Methods2005 Mads Dam IMIT, KTH 1 CCS: Processes and Equivalences Mads Dam Reading: Peled 8.5.
Hyperproperties Michael Clarkson and Fred B. Schneider Cornell University Ph.D. Seminar Northeastern University October 14, 2010.
Compositional Formal Verification using MOCHA PI: Tom Henzinger Student 1: Freddy Mang (game-theoretic methods) Student 2: Ranjit Jhala (probabilistic.
1 CSEP590 – Model Checking and Automated Verification Lecture outline for July 9, 2003.
Model Checking Lecture 1. Model checking, narrowly interpreted: Decision procedures for checking if a given Kripke structure is a model for a given formula.
CS357 Lecture 13: Symbolic model checking without BDDs Alex Aiken David Dill 1.
3-Valued Abstraction and 3-Valued Model-Checking.
Process Algebra (2IF45) Basic Process Algebra Dr. Suzana Andova.
Model Checking Lecture 1: Specification Tom Henzinger.
Model Checking Lecture 2. Model-Checking Problem I |= S System modelSystem property.
Model Checking Lecture 2 Tom Henzinger. Model-Checking Problem I |= S System modelSystem property.
Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement By Edmund Clarke, Orna Grumberg, Somesh Jha, Yuan Lu, and Helmut Veith Presented by Yunho Kim Provable Software.
Presentation Title 2/4/2018 Software Verification using Predicate Abstraction and Iterative Refinement: Part Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification.
Prof. Dr. Holger Schlingloff 1,2 Dr. Esteban Pavese 1
SS 2018 Software Verification ML, state machines
Internet of Things A Process Calculus Approach
CSEP590 – Model Checking and Automated Verification
Computer Security: Art and Science, 2nd Edition
Metrics for real time probabilistic processes
Translating Linear Temporal Logic into Büchi Automata
Introduction to verification
Predicate Abstraction
Formal Methods in software development
Model Checking Graph Grammars
Presentation transcript:

Possibilistic and probabilistic abstraction-based model checking Michael Huth Computing Imperial College London, United Kingdom

Outline of talk  need for abstraction  modal quantitative systems  possibilistic semantics  probabilistic semantics  specification of abstractions  conclusions.

Need for abstraction LTL model checking for finite-state Markov decision processes is [Courcoubetis & Yannakakis’95]  polymonial in model (which are big) and  doubly exponential in formula. Infinite-state models occur in practice.  Aggressive abstraction techniques required for model checking real-world designs.

Abstraction loci Abstract the computation of a model check M |= , by approximating  the model M to M*; e.g. simulations [Larsen & Skou’91]  the satisfaction relation |= to |=*, e.g compositional conjunction [Baier et al.’00]  the property  to  *, e.g. bounded model checking [Clarke et al.’01] Combinations possible: e.g. make a probabilistic M non-probabilistic [Vardi’85].

Soudness needed  Valid verfication certificates: positive abstract check M* |=*  *  M |=  holds as well.  Valid refutation certificates: nevative abstract check M* |=* ¬    M |= ¬  holds, too.  Range of  : full logic for sound mix of fairness & abstraction, safety & liveness, verification & refutation, etc. Such a framework is well developed for qualitative systems: three-valued model checking [Larsen & Thomsen’88, Bruns & Godefroid’99].

Research aims  transfer two-valued & three-valued model checking to quantitative systems;  let probabilistic systems be a special instance of such a transfer; and  use transferred results to re-assess existing work on abstraction of probabilistic systems.

Modal quantitative systems  modal nature of non-determinism: “There are delays on the Bakerloo Line.” != “There are no delays on the remaining lines.”  transitions (s,  ) have type  x [ F  P] - P partial order of quantities - F  -algebra on state set  - [ F  P] = maps  F  P such that A in A’   (A)  (A’)  atomic observables and preimage operator are in F.

Examples  “neural” systems - each s in  is a stimulus w s in [0,  -  (A) is weighted sum of stimuli w s  Markov decision processes - P = [0,1] - all  in transitions are probability measures - complete: non-determinism fully specified  Choquet’s capacities, pCTL*, and weak bisimulation [Desharnais et al.’02].

Concrete and abstract model p pq q    s0s0 s3s3 s1s1 s2s /3.5 t 0 = { s 0, s 1, s 3 } p? q?  2/3 1/3 QQ QQ QQ QQ t 1 = { s 2 } 2/3 1/ /3 2/3.5 p  (p = tt) is valid p?  (p = tt) is satisfiable  Q  is special

Measurable navigation  a relation Q :  1   2 has measurable navigation: for all A in F 1 and B in F 2 A.Q in F 2 and Q.B in F 1  non-trivial property  basis for relational abstraction/refinement  works for finite quotients with measurable equivalence classes.

Lifting relations to measures For Q :    with measurable navigation, define Q ps : [ F  P]  [ F  P] by (  in Q ps iff for all A, B in F  (A)   (A.Q) and  (B)  (Q.B)  … a generalization of probabilistic (bi)simulation [Larsen & Skou’91].

Abstraction & refinement A relation Q :    with measurable navigation is a possibilistic refinement if (s,t) in Q implies  (t  in R a   (s  in R a such that  ) in Q ps  (s  in R c   (t  in R c such that  ) in Q ps R a = guaranteed transitions (e.g.  Q above), R c = possible transitions. //modal non-determinism

Possibilistic semantics Quantitative logic:   ::= tt | p | Z |  Z.  | ¬  |  &  | EX >r   assertion checks s|= a   consistency checks s|= c   usual semantics, except for - s|= a ¬  iff not s|= c  - s|= c ¬  iff not s|= a  ; and - s|= l EX >r  iff   (s  in R l :  ({t | t|= l  }) > r where l in {a, c}.

Soundness We prove { s in  | s|= l  } in F for l in {a, c} and  and use it to show: “Q possibilistic refinement with (s,t) in Q, then 1. t|= a   s|= a  2. s|= c   t|= c  // needed to prove 1. for all .”

Probabilistic semantics  probability measures for transitions   Z.  restricted to probabilistic EU  same semantics except for EU  possibilistic semantics “approximates” probabilistic one  sound probabilistic refinement: Q  Q pr [Larsen & Skou’91]  Q pr = Q ps for finite-state Markov decision processes.

Specification of abstraction  = state set of un-abstracted model,  = finite target state set of abstract model: 1.specify left/right-total relation Q :   A; 2.determines an abstract model over A with discrete  algebra … 3.… which makes Q into a refinement.

Understanding the lift  in [ F  P]   Q (B) =  (B.Q) well defined   Q ) in Q ps 3.(  in Q ps     Q 4. converse of 3. holds if Q is graph of a function  finite state set of Markov decision process  Q ps = Q pr & same abstractions … 4. holds if A is a finite set of measurable equivalence classes, e.g. predicate abstraction w.r.t. finitely many measurable predicates.

Example re-visited p pq q    s0s0 s3s3 s1s1 s2s /3.5 t 0 = { s 0, s 1, s 3 } |= a ¬EX >3/4 ¬EX >3/10 ¬p p? q?  2/3 1/3 QQ QQ QQ QQ t 1 = { s 2 } 2/3 1/ /3 2/3.5 Abstraction along the predicate ¬(¬p & ¬q) only  Q  in R a

Conclusions  transferred three-valued model checking to quantitative systems;  showed that probabilistic systems and Larsen & Skou simulations are a special instance of such a transfer;  re-assessed existing work on abstraction of probabilistic systems in this context; and  showed that this approach works for an important class of finite-state abstractions.