اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدSymbolic vs. Bounded Synthesis for Petri Games
64
0
0.0
(
0
)
تأليف
Bernd Finkbeiner
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Petri games are a multiplayer game model for the automatic synthesis of distributed systems. We compare two fundamentally different approaches for solving Petri games. The symbolic approach decides the existence of a winning strategy via a reduction to a two-player game over a finite graph, which in turn is solved by a fixed point iteration based on binary decision diagrams (BDDs). The bounded synthesis approach encodes the existence of a winning strategy, up to a given bound on the size of the strategy, as a quantified Boolean formula (QBF). In this paper, we report on initial experience with a prototype implementation of the bounded synthesis approach. We compare bounded synthesis to the existing implementation of the symbolic approach in the synthesis tool ADAM. We present experimental results on a collection of benchmarks, including one new benchmark family, modeling manufacturing and workflow scenarios with multiple concurrent processes.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We present a faster symbolic algorithm for the following central problem in probabilistic verification: Compute the maximal end-component (MEC) decomposition of Markov decision processes (MDPs). This problem generalizes the SCC decomposition problem
of graphs and closed recurrent sets of Markov chains. The model of symbolic algorithms is widely used in formal verification and model-checking, where access to the input model is restricted to only symbolic operations (e.g., basic set operations and computation of one-step neighborhood). For an input MDP with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, the classical symbolic algorithm from the 1990s for the MEC decomposition requires $O(n^2)$ symbolic operations and $O(1)$ symbolic space. The only other symbolic algorithm for the MEC decomposition requires $O(n sqrt{m})$ symbolic operations and $O(sqrt{m})$ symbolic space. A main open question is whether the worst-case $O(n^2)$ bound for symbolic operations can be beaten. We present a symbolic algorithm that requires $widetilde{O}(n^{1.5})$ symbolic operations and $widetilde{O}(sqrt{n})$ symbolic space. Moreover, the parametrization of our algorithm provides a trade-off between symbolic operations and symbolic space: for all $0<epsilon leq 1/2$ the symbolic algorithm requires $widetilde{O}(n^{2-epsilon})$ symbolic operations and $widetilde{O}(n^{epsilon})$ symbolic space ($widetilde{O}$ hides poly-logarithmic factors). Using our techniques we present faster algorithms for computing the almost-sure winning regions of $omega$-regular objectives for MDPs. We consider the canonical parity objectives for $omega$-regular objectives, and for parity objectives with $d$-priorities we present an algorithm that computes the almost-sure winning region with $widetilde{O}(n^{2-epsilon})$ symbolic operations and $widetilde{O}(n^{epsilon})$ symbolic space, for all $0 < epsilon leq 1/2$.
Synthesis is the automated construction of a system from its specification. The system has to satisfy its specification in all possible environments. Modern systems often interact with other systems, or agents. Many times these agents have objectives
of their own, other than to fail the system. Thus, it makes sense to model system environments not as hostile, but as composed of rational agents; i.e., agents that act to achieve their own objectives. We introduce the problem of synthesis in the context of rational agents (rational synthesis, for short). The input consists of a temporal-logic formula specifying the system and temporal-logic formulas specifying the objectives of the agents. The output is an implementation T of the system and a profile of strategies, suggesting a behavior for each of the agents. The output should satisfy two conditions. First, the composition of T with the strategy profile should satisfy the specification. Second, the strategy profile should be an equilibria in the sense that, in view of their objectives, agents have no incentive to deviate from the strategies assigned to them. We solve the rational-synthesis problem for various definitions of equilibria studied in game theory. We also consider the multi-valued case in which the objectives of the system and the agents are still temporal logic formulas, but involve payoffs from a finite lattice.
Game semantics provides an interactive point of view on proofs, which enables one to describe precisely their dynamical behavior during cut elimination, by considering formulas as games on which proofs induce strategies. We are specifically intereste
d here in relating two such semantics of linear logic, of very different flavor, which both take in account concurrent features of the proofs: asynchronous games and concurrent games. Interestingly, we show that associating a concurrent strategy to an asynchronous strategy can be seen as a semantical counterpart of the focusing property of linear logic.
We consider parity games on infinite graphs where configurations are represented by control-states and integer vectors. This framework subsumes two classic game problems: parity games on vector addition systems with states (vass) and multidimensional
energy parity games. We show that the multidimensional energy parity game problem is inter-reducible with a subclass of single-sided parity games on vass where just one player can modify the integer counters and the opponent can only change control-states. Our main result is that the minimal elements of the upward-closed winning set of these single-sided parity games on vass are computable. This implies that the Pareto frontier of the minimal initial credit needed to win multidimensional energy parity games is also computable, solving an open question from the literature. Moreover, our main result implies the decidability of weak simulation preorder/equivalence between finite-state systems and vass, and the decidability of model checking vass with a large fragment of the modal mu-calculus.
We prove that the determinacy of Gale-Stewart games whose winning sets are accepted by real-time 1-counter Buchi automata is equivalent to the determinacy of (effective) analytic Gale-Stewart games which is known to be a large cardinal assumption. We
show also that the determinacy of Wadge games between two players in charge of omega-languages accepted by 1-counter Buchi automata is equivalent to the (effective) analytic Wadge determinacy. Using some results of set theory we prove that one can effectively construct a 1-counter Buchi automaton A and a Buchi automaton B such that: (1) There exists a model of ZFC in which Player 2 has a winning strategy in the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)); (2) There exists a model of ZFC in which the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)) is not determined. Moreover these are the only two possibilities, i.e. there are no models of ZFC in which Player 1 has a winning strategy in the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)).
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
