Pushdown module checking with imperfect information

Aminof, Benjamin; Legay, Axel; Murano, Aniello; Serre, Olivier; Vardi, Moshe Y.

doi:10.1016/j.ic.2012.11.005

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assume a modal logic L whose formulae are interpreted in pointed concurrent game structures according to the semantic relation |= L . 4 For example, L can be the computation tree logic CTL [9,11] or alternating-time temporal logic ATL [2]. Given a CGS M , the set of all infinite computations of M starting from the initial state q 0 is described by an St-labeled tree that we call the computation tree of M and denote by tree(M ).…”

Section: Module Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Module Checking for Uncertain Agents

Jamroga

Murano

2015

PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Module checking is a decision problem proposed in late 1990s to formalize verification of open systems, i.e., systems that must adapt their behavior to the input they receive from the environment. It was recently shown that module checking offers a distinctly different perspective from the better-known problem of model checking. Module checking has been studied in several variants. Syntactically, specifications in temporal logic CTL and strategic logic ATL have been used. Semantically, the environment was assumed to have either perfect or imperfect information about the global state of the interaction. In this work, we rectify our approach to imperfect information module checking from the previous paper. Moreover, we study the variant of module checking where also the system acts under uncertainty. More precisely, we assume that the system consists of one or more agents whose decision making is constrained by their observational capabilities. We propose an automatabased verification procedure for the new problem, and establish its computational complexity.

show abstract

Section: Module Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Module Checking for Uncertain Agents

Jamroga

Murano

2015

PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the computation tree automaton developed for the complete information setting can not be easily adapted to reject trees that violate the restriction imposed by the incomplete information setting. See [8,9] for a related discussion on recursive (formally, pushdown) systems with incomplete information.…”

Section: Incomplete Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesis of Hierarchical Systems

Aminof

Mogavero

Murano

2012

Formal Aspects of Component Software

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In automated synthesis, given a specification, we automatically create a system that is guaranteed to satisfy the specification. In the classical temporal synthesis algorithms, one usually creates a "flat" system "from scratch". However, real-life software and hardware systems are usually created using preexisting libraries of reusable components, and are not "flat" since repeated sub-systems are described only once.In this work we describe an algorithm for the synthesis of a hierarchical system from a library of hierarchical components, which follows the "bottom-up" approach to system design. Our algorithm works by synthesizing in many rounds, when at each round the system designer provides the specification of the currently desired module, which is then automatically synthesized using the initial library and the previously constructed modules. To ensure that the synthesized module actually takes advantage of the available high-level modules, we guide the algorithm by enforcing certain modularity criteria.We show that the synthesis of a hierarchical system from a library of hierarchical components is EXPTIME-complete for µ-calculus, and 2EXPTIME-complete for LTL, both in the cases of complete and incomplete information. Thus, in all cases, it is not harder than the classical synthesis problem (of synthesizing flat systems "from scratch"), even though the synthesized hierarchical system may be exponentially smaller than a flat one.

show abstract

“…In [7], it was extended to infinite-state open systems by considering pushdown modules. The pushdown module-checking problem was first investigated for perfect information, and later, in [4,6], for imperfect information; the latter variant was proved in general undecidable in [4]. [13] address module checking against µ-calculus specifications, and in [25], the module-checking problem was studied for bounded pushdown modules (or hierarchical modules).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Complexity of ATL and ATL* Module Checking

Bozzelli¹,

Murano²

2017

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Module checking has been introduced in late 1990s to verify open systems, i.e., systems whose behavior depends on the continuous interaction with the environment. Classically, module checking has been investigated with respect to specifications given as CTL and CTL * formulas. Recently, it has been shown that CTL (resp., CTL * ) module checking offers a distinctly different perspective from the better-known problem of ATL (resp., ATL * ) model checking. In particular, ATL (resp., ATL * ) module checking strictly enhances the expressiveness of both CTL (resp., CTL * ) module checking and ATL (resp. ATL * ) model checking. In this paper, we provide asymptotically optimal bounds on the computational cost of module checking against ATL and ATL * , whose upper bounds are based on an automata-theoretic approach. We show that module-checking for ATL is EXPTIME-complete, which is the same complexity of module checking against CTL. On the other hand, ATL * module checking turns out to be 3EXPTIME-complete, hence exponentially harder than CTL * module checking.

show abstract

Pushdown module checking with imperfect information

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

Module Checking for Uncertain Agents

Module Checking for Uncertain Agents

Synthesis of Hierarchical Systems

On the Complexity of ATL and ATL* Module Checking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About