Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis

ATVA 2020: Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis pp 501–517Cite as

Minimal Witnesses for Probabilistic Timed Automata

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 12302))

Abstract

Witnessing subsystems have proven to be a useful concept in the analysis of probabilistic systems, for example as diagnostic information on why a given property holds or as input to refinement algorithms. This paper introduces witnessing subsystems for reachability problems in probabilistic timed automata (PTA). Using a new operation on difference bounds matrices, it is shown how Farkas certificates of finite-state bisimulation quotients of a PTA can be translated into witnessing subsystems. We present algorithms for the computation of minimal witnessing subsystems under three notions of minimality, which capture the timed behavior from different perspectives, and discuss their complexity.

This work was funded by DFG grant 389792660 as part of TRR 248, the Cluster of Excellence EXC 2050/1 (CeTI, project ID 390696704, as part of Germany’s Excellence Strategy), DFG-projects BA-1679/11-1 and BA-1679/12-1, and the Research Training Group QuantLA (GRK 1763).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is a slight deviation from [14], where only strong subsystems were considered. Here we distinguish between weak and strong subsystems since it will reflect the corresponding notions for PTAs established in Sect. 3.

References

  1. Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Dill, D.: Model-checking in dense real-time. Inf. Comput. 104(1), 2–34 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1993.1024

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(94)90010-8

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrés, M.E., D’Argenio, P., van Rossum, P.: Significant diagnostic counterexamples in probabilistic model checking. In: Chockler, H., Hu, A.J. (eds.) HVC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5394, pp. 129–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01702-5_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Arora, S., Barak, B.: Computational Complexity - A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking (Representation and Mind Series). MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Beauquier, D.: On probabilistic timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 292(1), 65–84 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00215-8

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Behrmann, G., et al.: Uppaal 4.0. In: Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, QEST (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/QEST.2006.59

  8. Bengtsson, J., Yi, W.: Timed automata: semantics, algorithms and tools. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 87–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27755-2_3

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Berendsen, J., Jansen, D.N., Katoen, J.: Probably on time and within budget: on reachability in priced probabilistic timed automata. In: Quantitative Evaluation of Systems QEST (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/QEST.2006.43

  10. Češka, M., Hensel, C., Junges, S., Katoen, J.-P.: Counterexample-driven synthesis for probabilistic program sketches. In: ter Beek, M.H., McIver, A., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) FM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11800, pp. 101–120. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, T., Han, T., Katoen, J.: Time-abstracting bisimulation for probabilistic timed automata. In: International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 177–184 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2008.29

  12. Dierks, H., Kupferschmid, S., Larsen, K.G.: Automatic abstraction refinement for timed automata. In: Raskin, J.-F., Thiagarajan, P.S. (eds.) FORMATS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4763, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75454-1_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Dill, D.L.: Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52148-8_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Funke, F., Jantsch, S., Baier, C.: Farkas certificates and minimal witnesses for probabilistic reachability constraints. TACAS 2020. LNCS, vol. 12078, pp. 324–345. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Gritzmann, P., Klee, V.: On the complexity of some basic problems in computational convexity. In: Bisztriczky, T., McMullen, P., Schneider, R., Weiss, A.I. (eds.) Polytopes: Abstract Convex and Computational. Springer, Dordrecht (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0924-6_17

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Hermanns, H., Wachter, B., Zhang, L.: Probabilistic CEGAR. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 162–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Jansen, N., Ábrahám, E., Katelaan, J., Wimmer, R., Katoen, J.-P., Becker, B.: Hierarchical counterexamples for discrete-time Markov chains. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 443–452. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24372-1_33

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Jansen, N., et al.: Symbolic counterexample generation for large discrete-time Markov chains. Sci. Comput. Program. 91, 90–114 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jantsch, S., Funke, F., Baier, C.: Minimal witnesses for probabilistic timed automata. arXiv:2007.00637 (2020)

  20. Jurdziński, M., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Trivedi, A.: Concavely-priced probabilistic timed automata. In: Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) CONCUR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5710, pp. 415–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04081-8_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Jurdziński, M., Laroussinie, F., Sproston, J.: Model checking probabilistic timed automata with one or two clocks. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kölbl, M., Leue, S., Wies, T.: Clock bound repair for timed systems. In: Dillig, I., Tasiran, S. (eds.) CAV 2019. LNCS, vol. 11561, pp. 79–96. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25540-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Segala, R., Sproston, J.: Automatic verification of real-time systems with discrete probability distributions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 282(1), 101–150 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00046-9

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Sproston, J.: Probabilistic model checking of deadline properties in the IEEE 1394 FireWire root contention protocol. Form. Asp. Comput. 14(3), 295–318 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s001650300007

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Parker, D., Sproston, J.: Performance analysis of probabilistic timed automata using digital clocks. Form. Method Syst. Des. 29, 33–78 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-006-0005-2

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G., Sproston, J., Wang, F.: Symbolic model checking for probabilistic timed automata. Inf. Comput. 205(7), 1027–1077 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2007.01.004

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Laroussinie, F., Sproston, J.: State explosion in almost-sure probabilistic reachability. Inf. Process. Lett. 102(6), 236–241 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2007.01.003

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Norman, G., Parker, D., Sproston, J.: Model checking for probabilistic timed automata. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 43, 164–190 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-012-0177-x

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Özpeynirci, Ö., Köksalan, M.: An exact algorithm for finding extreme supported nondominated points of multiobjective mixed integer programs. Manag. Sci. 56(12), 2302–2315 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1248

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pettersson, W., Ozlen, M.: Multi-objective mixed integer programming: an objective space algorithm. AIP Conf. Proc. 2070(1), 020039 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5090006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sproston, J.: Discrete-time verification and control for probabilistic rectangular hybrid automata. In: Eight International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, QEST 2011, pp. 79–88 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/QEST.2011.18

  32. Tripakis, S.: L’analyse formelle des systèmes temporisès en pratique. Ph.D. thesis, Université Joseph Fourier (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wimmer, R., Jansen, N., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, J.P.: High-level counterexamples for probabilistic automata. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 11(1) (2015). https://doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-11(1:15)2015

  34. Wimmer, R., Jansen, N., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, J., Becker, B.: Minimal counterexamples for linear-time probabilistic verification. Theor. Comput. Sci. 549, 61–100 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.06.020

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Wimmer, S., Mutius, J.: Verified certification of reachability checking for timed automata. TACAS 2020. LNCS, vol. 12078, pp. 425–443. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Simon Jantsch, Florian Funke & Christel Baier

Authors
  1. Simon Jantsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Funke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christel Baier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Simon Jantsch or Florian Funke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vietnam National University (VNU-UET), Hanoi, Vietnam

    Dang Van Hung

  2. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Oleg Sokolsky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jantsch, S., Funke, F., Baier, C. (2020). Minimal Witnesses for Probabilistic Timed Automata. In: Hung, D.V., Sokolsky, O. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12302. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59152-6_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59152-6_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59151-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59152-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation