Chair of Software Engineering 1 Unreliable Channels are Easier To Verify Than Perfect Channels by G. Cécé, A. Finkel, and S. Purushotaman Iyer Arnaud Bailly.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multi-tape Turing Machines: Informal Description
Advertisements

Eager Markov Chains Parosh Aziz Abdulla Noomene Ben Henda Richard Mayr Sven Sandberg TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete.
Chapter 5 Pushdown Automata
Automatic Verification Book: Chapter 6. What is verification? Traditionally, verification means proof of correctness automatic: model checking deductive:
THE CHURCH-TURING T H E S I S “ TURING MACHINES” Pages COMPUTABILITY THEORY.
PROTOCOL VERIFICATION & PROTOCOL VALIDATION. Protocol Verification Communication Protocols should be checked for correctness, robustness and performance,
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 2 Mälardalen University 2005.
1 1 CDT314 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 School of Innovation, Design and Engineering Mälardalen University 2012.
Uncoordinated Checkpointing The Global State Recording Algorithm Cristian Solano.
Parosh Aziz Abdulla Pritha Mahata Aletta Nyl é n Uppsala University Downward Closed Language Generators.
From Monotonic Transition Systems to Monotonic Games Parosh Aziz Abdulla Uppsala University.
Pushdown Systems Koushik Sen EECS, UC Berkeley Slide Source: Sanjit A. Seshia.
Regular Model Checking Parosh Aziz Abdulla Uppsala University Cooperation with B. Jonsson, M. Nilsson, J. d’Orso.
Reducibility 2 Theorem 5.1 HALT TM is undecidable.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture11: Variants of Turing Machines Prof. Amos Israeli.
Prof. Busch - LSU1 Decidable Languages. Prof. Busch - LSU2 Recall that: A language is Turing-Acceptable if there is a Turing machine that accepts Also.
Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI1 Non Deterministic Automata.
1 Linear Bounded Automata LBAs. 2 Linear Bounded Automata are like Turing Machines with a restriction: The working space of the tape is the space of the.
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Turing Machines. Fall 2004COMP 3352 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Lecture 3 Goals: Formal definition of NFA, acceptance of a string by an NFA, computation tree associated with a string. Algorithm to convert an NFA to.
Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI1 Turing Machines. Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Lecture 3 Goals: Formal definition of NFA, acceptance of a string by an NFA, computation tree associated with a string. Algorithm to convert an NFA to.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata.
Costas Busch - RPI1 Turing Machines. Costas Busch - RPI2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
1 Turing Machines. 2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Another NFA Example. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Language accepted (redundant state)
Costas Busch - LSU1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata.
Grammars, Languages and Finite-state automata Languages are described by grammars We need an algorithm that takes as input grammar sentence And gives a.
1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA)
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Regular Model Checking Ahmed Bouajjani,Benget Jonsson, Marcus Nillson and Tayssir Touili Moran Ben Tulila
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen Department of Computer Science University of Texas-Pan American.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing September 28, 2005.
CS/IT 138 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Chapter 1 Introduction to the Theory of Computation.
1 Models of Computation o Turing Machines o Finite store + Tape o transition function: o If in state S1 and current cell is a 0 (1) then write 1 (0) and.
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 Mälardalen University 2010.
THE CHURCH-TURING T H E S I S “ TURING MACHINES” Part 1 – Pages COMPUTABILITY THEORY.
1 Linear Bounded Automata LBAs. 2 Linear Bounded Automata (LBAs) are the same as Turing Machines with one difference: The input string tape space is the.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
D E C I D A B I L I T Y 1. 2 Objectives To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems. To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability. To.
Finite Automata Chapter 1. Automatic Door Example Top View.
Costas Busch - LSU1 Turing’s Thesis. Costas Busch - LSU2 Turing’s thesis (1930): Any computation carried out by mechanical means can be performed by a.
Parosh Aziz Abdulla 1, Mohamed Faouzi Atig 1, Zeinab Ganjei 2, Ahmed Rezine 2 and Yunyun Zhu 1 1. Uppsala University, Sweden 2. Linköping University, Sweden.
1 Introduction to Turing Machines
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 12 Mälardalen University 2007.
1 Turing Machines. 2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 5 Reducibility Some slides are in courtesy.
1 Turing Machines. 2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Communicating Timed Automata Pavel Krčál Wang Yi Uppsala University [CAV’06]
Modeling Arithmetic, Computation, and Languages Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 8 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesTuring.
Turing’s Thesis Costas Busch - LSU.
Automata, Grammars and Languages
ماشین های تورینگ، تشخیص پذیری و تصمیم پذیری زبان ها
Non Deterministic Automata
OTHER MODELS OF TURING MACHINES
Turing Machines 2nd 2017 Lecture 9.
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Jaya Krishna, M.Tech, Assistant Professor
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
CSE322 Definition and description of finite Automata
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Non Deterministic Automata
Decidable Languages A language L is decidable if there is a Turing machine ML such that given any word w  0*, then: Input of ML: a  b  … w Output of.
The Off-Line Machine Input File read-only (once) Input string
Variations of the Turing Machine
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Formal Definitions for Turing Machines
Presentation transcript:

Chair of Software Engineering 1 Unreliable Channels are Easier To Verify Than Perfect Channels by G. Cécé, A. Finkel, and S. Purushotaman Iyer Arnaud Bailly Presentation based on

Chair of Software Engineering 2 Communicating Finite-State Machines  Are finite-state automata,  Communicating through channels that are  unbounded,  fifo,  perfect (no losses, no duplications, no insertions).

Chair of Software Engineering 3 Product Automaton After combination, study on only one machine.

Chair of Software Engineering 4 CFSMs, Formally A machine is noted with Configurations are in set of:

Chair of Software Engineering 5 Problems of Interest  With the set of reachable configurations of.  Reachability: does belong to ?  Deadlock: has any successor?  Boundedness: is finite?  Others: finite termination, computation of, model-checking against CTL*.  Think about distributed software verification!

Chair of Software Engineering 6 But… [BZ83]  CFSMs are Turing-Powerful!  Mark the first and last cell by a symbol.  Add a symbol “&” to mark the head.  Advance one cell is:  receive s’ from channel and repeat:  receive s,  if s not “&” then emit s’ and s’:= s  else emit &, emit s’.  read the list until end symbol, emit symbol.  Write and go-back are similar.  Every problem of interest is undecidable!

Chair of Software Engineering 7 Unreliable Channels  Unreliable channels can:  lose messages, or  duplicate messages, or  insert new messages, or  a combination of all the above.

Chair of Software Engineering 8 Lossy Channels [AJ94]  Can lose any message.  Subwords:  Closure:  Higman’s theorem (1952): There is no infinite set of words such that all members of are pairwise incomparable.  In particular, there is no infinite chain of upward-closed sets of words.  For then the set of predecessors of forms an upward-closed chain. Hence it is finite.  A new proof is given.

Chair of Software Engineering 9 Duplication Machines  It is shown that they are Turing expressive.  Modify the machine so that:  each symbol is followed by #,  # is not in the alphabet of the machine.  One can build an homomorphism from modified to plain machines.  It is shown that one can build a “squeeze repeats” homomorphism from duplication machines to modified machines.

Chair of Software Engineering 10 Insertion Machines  It is shown that: Since one can insert symbols everywhere on the tape, channel languages are upward-closed.  Hence: The reachability problem is solvable.

Chair of Software Engineering 11 Combination of Errors Insertion and Lossiness are “stronger” than duplication.

Chair of Software Engineering 12 Questions? Thank You!

Chair of Software Engineering 13 References  [BZ83] D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines, Journal of the ACM, 30(2): ,  [AJ94] Parosh Aziz Abdulla and Bengt Jonsson: Undecidable Verification Problems for Programs with Unreliable Channels. ICALP 1994: