skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

A Weakness Measure for GR(1) Formulae

Published:01 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Abstract

When dealing with unrealizable specifications in reactive synthesis, finding the weakest environment assumptions that ensure realizability is often considered a desirable property. However, little effort has been dedicated to defining or evaluating the notion of weakness of assumptions formally. The question of whether one assumption is weaker than another is commonly interpreted by considering the implication relationship between the two or, equivalently, their language inclusion. This interpretation fails to provide any insight into the weakness of the assumptions when implication (or language inclusion) does not hold. To our knowledge, the only measure that is capable of comparing two formulae in this case is entropy, but even it cannot distinguish the weakness of assumptions expressed as fairness properties. In this paper, we propose a refined measure of weakness based on combining entropy with Hausdorff dimension, a concept that captures the notion of size of the ω-language satisfying a linear temporal logic formula. We focus on a special subset of linear temporal logic formulae which is of particular interest in reactive synthesis, called GR(1). We identify the conditions under which this measure is guaranteed to distinguish between weaker and stronger GR(1) formulae, and propose a refined measure to cover cases when two formulae are strictly ordered by implication but have the same entropy and Hausdorff dimension. We prove the consistency between our weakness measure and logical implication, that is, if one formula implies another, the latter is weaker than the former according to our measure. We evaluate our proposed weakness measure in two contexts. The first is in computing GR(1) assumption refinements where our weakness measure is used as a heuristic to drive the refinement search towards weaker solutions. The second is in the context of quantitative model checking where it is used to measure the size of the language of a model violating a linear temporal logic formula.

References

  1. [AAK13] Almagor SAvni GKupferman OAutomatic generation of quality specificationsInternational conference on computer aided verification (CAV)2013BerlinSpringer47949410.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_32Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [ABD14a] Asarin E, Blockelet M, Degorre A (2014) Entropy model checking. In: Workshop on Quantitative Aspects of Programming Languages (QAPL)—joint with european joint conference on theory and practice of software (ETAPS)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [ABD+14b] Asarin E, Blockelet M, Degorre A, Dima C, Mu C (2014) Asymptotic behaviour in temporal logic. In: Joint meeting of the annual conference on computer science logic and the annual symposium on logic in computer science (CSL/LICS). ACM Press, pp 1–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [ADG16] Albarghouthi ADillig IGurfinkel AMaximal specification synthesisACM SIGPLAN Notices201651178980110.1145/2914770.2837628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [AMT13] Alur RMoarref STopcu UCounter-strategy guided refinement of GR(1) temporal logic specificationsInternational conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD)2013BerlinSpringer2633Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [AMT15] Alur RMoarref STopcu UPattern-based refinement of assume-guarantee specifications in reactive synthesisInternational conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS)2015BerlinSpringer5015161420.68116Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [BCG+10] Bloem RCimatti AGreimel KHofferek GKönighofer RRoveri MSchuppan VSeeber RRATSY: a new requirements analysis tool with synthesisInternational conference on computer aided verification (CAV)2010BerlinSpringer42542910.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_37Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [BCG+14] Bloem RChatterjee KGreimel KHenzinger TAHofferek GJobstmann BKönighofer BKönighofer RSynthesizing robust systems. Acta Inf2014513–4193220Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [BCHJ09] Bloem RChatterjee KHenzinger TAJobstmann BBetter quality in synthesis through quantitative objectivesInternational conference on computer aided verification (CAV)2009BerlinSpringer14015610.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [BDP+13] Braberman V, D'Ippolito N, Piterman N, Sykes D, Uchitel S (2013) Controller synthesis: from modelling to enactment. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 1347–1350. IEEEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [BJP+12] Bloem RJobstmann BPiterman NPnueli ASa'Ar YSynthesis of reactive(1) designsJ Comput Syst Sci2012783911938290004010.1016/j.jcss.2011.08.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [BKvS12] Babiak TKřetínský MŘehák VStrejček JLTL to Büchi automata translation: fast and more deterministicInternational conference and tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS)2012BerlinSpringer951091352.68142Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [BP94] Berman APlemmons RNonnegative matrices in the mathematical sciences1994PhiladelphiaSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics10.1137/1.9781611971262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [CA16] Cavezza DG, Alrajeh D (2016) Interpolation-based GR(1) assumptions refinement. CoRR, arXiv:1611.07803Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [CA17] Cavezza DGAlrajeh DInterpolation-based GR(1) assumptions refinementInternational conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS)2017BerlinSpringer281297Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [CAG18] Cavezza DG, Alrajeh D, György A (2018) A weakness measure for GR(1) formulae. In: International symposium on formal methods (FM), pp 110–128Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [CDF+06] Chatterjee KDe Alfaro LFaella MHenzinger TAMajumdar RStoelinga MCompositional quantitative reasoningInternational conference on the quantitative evaluation of systems (QEST)2006BerlinSpringer179188Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [CGP03] Cobleigh JMGiannakopoulou DPăsăreanu CSLearning assumptions for compositional verificationInternational conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS)2003BerlinSpringer3313461031.68545Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [CHJ08] Chatterjee KHenzinger TAJobstmann BEnvironment assumptions for synthesisInternational conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR)2008BerlinSpringer147161Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [CJS09] Calude CSJürgensen HStaiger LTopology on wordsTheor Comput Sci200941024–2523232335252243710.1016/j.tcs.2009.02.029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [CL08] Cassandras CGLafortune SIntroduction to discrete event systems2008BerlinSpringer10.1007/978-0-387-68612-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [CRST08] Cimatti ARoveri MSchuppan VTchaltsev ADiagnostic information for realizabilityInternational conference on verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation (VMCAI)2008BerlinSpringer526710.1007/978-3-540-78163-9_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [CT06] Cover TMThomas JAElements of information theory20062New YorkWiley1140.94001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [DAC99] Dwyer MB, Avrunin GS, Corbett JC (1999) Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: International conference on software engineering (ICSE). ACM, pp 411–420Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [DAV] https://gitlab.doc.ic.ac.uk/dgc14/FMextRepoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [DBK+14] D'Ippolito N, Braberman V, Kramer J, Magee J, Sykes D, Uchitel S (2014) Hope for the best, prepare for the worst: multi-tier control for adaptive systems. In: International conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 688–699Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [DBPU10] D'Ippolito NR, Braberman V, Piterman N, Uchitel S (2010) Synthesis of live behaviour models. In: International symposium on foundations of software engineering (FSE). ACM Press, p 77Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [DBSU15] D'Ippolito N, Braberman V, Sykes D, Uchitel S (2015) Robust degradation and enhancement of robot mission behaviour in unpredictable environments. In: International workshop on control theory for software engineering (CTSE). ACM, pp 26–33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [DCA+18] Degiovanni RCastro PArroyo MRuiz MAguirre NFrias MGoal-conflict likelihood assessment based on model countingInternational conference on software engineering (ICSE)2018New YorkACM Press1125113510.1145/3180155.3180261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [DGT18] Dimitrova R, Ghasemi M, Topcu U (2018) Maximum realizability for linear temporal logic specifications. In: International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA). Springer, Berlin, pp 458–475Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [DLLF+16] Duret-Lutz A, Lewkowicz A, Fauchille A, Michaud T, Renault E, Xu L (2016) Spot 2.0—a framework for LTL and ω-automata manipulation. In: International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA). Springer, Berlin, pp 122–129Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [EKS16] Esparza JKetínský JSickert SFrom LTL to deterministic automata: a safraless compositional approachFormal Methods Syst Des201649321927110.1007/s10703-016-0259-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [Fal04] Falconer KFractal geometry: mathematical foundations and applications2004LondonWiley0689.28003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [GL02] Giannakopoulou D, Lerda F (2002) From states to transitions: improving translation of LTL formulae to Büchi automata. In: International conference on formal techniques for networked and distributed sytems (FORTE), pp 308–326Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [GM03] Giannakopoulou D, Magee J (2003) Fluent model checking for event-based systems. In: European software engineering conference held jointly with international symposium on foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, pp 257–266Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [GTW02] Grädel EThomas WWilke TAutomata logics, and infinite games: a guide to current research2002New YorkSpringer10.1007/3-540-36387-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [Hen10] Henzinger TFrom boolean to quantitative notions of correctnessACM SIGPLAN Notices201045115710.1145/1707801.1706319Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [HJ86] Horn RAJohnson CRMatrix analysis1986New YorkCambridge University PressGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [HJ94] Hansson HJonsson BA logic for reasoning about time and reliabilityFormal Asp Comput19946551253510.1007/BF01211866Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [HJ12] Horn RA, Johnson CR (2012) Matrix analysisGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [HO13] Henzinger TAOtop JFrom model checking to model measuringInternational conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR)2013BerlinSpringer273287Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [KE12] Kretínský JEsparza JDeterministic automata for the (F, G)-fragment of LTLInternational conference on computer aided verification (CAV)2012BerlinSpringer72210.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [KGFP09] Kress-Gazit HFainekos GEPappas GJTemporal-logic-based reactive mission and motion planningIEEE Trans Robot20092561370138110.1109/TRO.2009.2030225Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [KHB09] Konighofer R, Hofferek G, Bloem R (2009) Debugging formal specifications using simple counterstrategies. In: International conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), pp 152–159Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [KMR17] Kuvent AMaoz SRingert JOA symbolic justice violations transition system for unrealizable GR(1) specificationsEuropean software engineering conference held jointly with international symposium on foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE), number 12017New YorkACM Press362372Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [Kup12] Kupferman ORecent challenges and ideas in temporal synthesisInternational conference on current trends in theory and practice of computer science (SOFSEM)2012BerlinSpringer8898Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [Kwi07] Kwiatkowska M (2007) Quantitative verification: models, techniques and tools. In: European software engineering conference held jointly with international symposium on foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM Press, p 449Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [LDS11] Li W, Dworkin L, Seshia SA (2011) Mining assumptions for synthesis. In: International conference on formal methods and models for codesign (MEMOCODE). ACM/IEEE, pp 43–50Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [LSWW10] Lomuscio A, Strulo B, Walker N, Wu P (2010) Assume-guarantee reasoning with local specifications. In: International conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM), pp 204–219Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [Lut14] Lutz AD (2014) LTL translation improvements in spot 1.0. Int J Crit Comput Based Syst 5(1/2):31Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [MR15] Maoz SRingert JOGR(1) synthesis for LTL specification patternsEuropean software engineering conference held jointly with international symposium on foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE), number 12015New YorkACM Press96106Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. [MRS19] Maoz S, Ringert JO, Shalom R (2019) Symbolic repairs for GR(1) specifications. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [MS94] Merzenich WStaiger LFractals, dimension, and formal languagesInf Théor Appl1994283–4361386128245310.1051/ita/1994283-403611Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [NA06] Nam W, Alur R (2006) Learning-based symbolic assume-guarantee reasoning with automatic decomposition. In: International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA), pp 170–185Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. [Pnu77] Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In: Annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pp 46–57Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. [PPS06] Piterman NPnueli ASa'ar YSynthesis of reactive(1) designsInternational conference on verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation (VMCAI)2006BerlinSpringer364380Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [PR89] Pnueli ARosner ROn the synthesis of a reactive modulePrinciples of programming languages (POPL)1989New YorkACM179190Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [RDLKP13] Renault EDuret-Lutz AKordon FPoitrenaud DThree SCC-based emptiness checks for generalized Büchi automataInternational conference on logic for programming artificial intelligence and reasoning (LPAR)2013BerlinSpringer66868210.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_44Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [SB00] Somenzi F, Bloem R (2000) Efficient Buchi automata from LTL formulae. In: International conference on computer aided verification (CAV), vol 1855, pp 1–17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [Sen06] Seneta ENon-negative matrices and Markov chains2006BerlinSpringer1099.60004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [Ses15] Seshia SACombining induction, deduction, and structure for verification and synthesisProc IEEE2015103112036205110.1109/JPROC.2015.2471838Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [Sta98] Staiger L (1998) The Hausdorff measure of regular ω-languages is computable. Technical Report August, Martin-Luther-UniversitätGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. [Sta15] Staiger LOn the Hausdorff measure of regular omega-languages in Cantor spaceDiscrete Math Theor Comput Sci201517135736833514771323.68345Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [Tar72] Tarjan RDepth-first search and linear graph algorithmsSIAM J Comput19721214616030417810.1137/0201010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. [TN16] Tabuada P, Neider D (2016) Robust linear temporal logic. In: Annual conference on computer science logic (CSL), pp 10:1–10:21. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer InformatikGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. [TUS+17] Tomita TUeno AShimakawa MHagihara SYonezaki NSafraless LTL synthesis considering maximal realizabilityActa Inf2017547655692371231310.1007/s00236-016-0280-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. [Var96] Vardi MY (1996) An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. Logics for concurrency, pp 238–266Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader