Discounting in LTL

In recent years, there is growing need and interest in formalizing and reasoning about the quality of software and hardware systems. As opposed to traditional verification, where one handles the question of whether a system satisfies, or not, a given specification, reasoning about quality addresses the question of \emph{how well} the system satisfies the specification. One direction in this effort is to refine the "eventually" operators of temporal logic to {\em discounting operators}: the satisfaction value of a specification is a value in $[0,1]$, where the longer it takes to fulfill eventuality requirements, the smaller the satisfaction value is. In this paper we introduce an augmentation by discounting of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), and study it, as well as its combination with propositional quality operators. We show that one can augment LTL with an arbitrary set of discounting functions, while preserving the decidability of the model-checking problem. Further augmenting the logic with unary propositional quality operators preserves decidability, whereas adding an average-operator makes some problems undecidable. We also discuss the complexity of the problem, as well as various extensions

On recognizing words that are squares for the shuffle product

International audienceun résumé

Temporal specifications with accumulative values

Recently, there has been an effort to add quantitative objectives to formal verification and synthesis. We introduce and investigate the extension of temporal logics with quantitative atomic assertions. At the heart of quantitative objectives lies the accumulation of values along a computation. It is often the accumulated sum, as with energy objectives, or the accumulated average, as with mean-payoff objectives. We investigate the extension of temporal logics with the prefix-accumulation assertions Sum(v) ≥ c and Avg(v) ≥ c, where v is a numeric (or Boolean) variable of the system, c is a constant rational number, and Sum(v) and Avg(v) denote the accumulated sum and average of the values of v from the beginning of the computation up to the current point in time. We also allow the path-accumulation assertions LimInfAvg(v) ≥ c and LimSupAvg(v) ≥ c, referring to the average value along an entire infinite computation. We study the border of decidability for such quantitative extensions of various temporal logics. In particular, we show that extending the fragment of CTL that has only the EX, EF, AX, and AG temporal modalities with both prefix-accumulation assertions, or extending LTL with both path-accumulation assertions, results in temporal logics whose model-checking problem is decidable. Moreover, the prefix-accumulation assertions may be generalized with "controlled accumulation," allowing, for example, to specify constraints on the average waiting time between a request and a grant. On the negative side, we show that this branching-time logic is, in a sense, the maximal logic with one or both of the prefix-accumulation assertions that permits a decidable model-checking procedure. Extending a temporal logic that has the EG or EU modalities, such as CTL or LTL, makes the problem undecidable

Complexity Theory

Computational Complexity Theory is the mathematical study of the intrinsic power and limitations of computational resources like time, space, or randomness. The current workshop focused on recent developments in various sub-areas including arithmetic complexity, Boolean complexity, communication complexity, cryptography, probabilistic proof systems, pseudorandomness, and quantum computation. Many of the developements are related to diverse mathematical fields such as algebraic geometry, combinatorial number theory, probability theory, quantum mechanics, representation theory, and the theory of error-correcting codes

An Algorithmic Framework for Strategic Fair Division

We study the paradigmatic fair division problem of allocating a divisible good among agents with heterogeneous preferences, commonly known as cake cutting. Classical cake cutting protocols are susceptible to manipulation. Do their strategic outcomes still guarantee fairness? To address this question we adopt a novel algorithmic approach, by designing a concrete computational framework for fair division---the class of Generalized Cut and Choose (GCC) protocols}---and reasoning about the game-theoretic properties of algorithms that operate in this model. The class of GCC protocols includes the most important discrete cake cutting protocols, and turns out to be compatible with the study of fair division among strategic agents. In particular, GCC protocols are guaranteed to have approximate subgame perfect Nash equilibria, or even exact equilibria if the protocol's tie-breaking rule is flexible. We further observe that the (approximate) equilibria of proportional GCC protocols---which guarantee each of the $n$ agents a $1/n$-fraction of the cake---must be (approximately) proportional. Finally, we design a protocol in this framework with the property that its Nash equilibrium allocations coincide with the set of (contiguous) envy-free allocations

Checking Linearizability of Concurrent Priority Queues

Efficient implementations of concurrent objects such as atomic collections are essential to modern computing. Programming such objects is error prone: in minimizing the synchronization overhead between concurrent object invocations, one risks the conformance to sequential specifications -- or in formal terms, one risks violating linearizability. Unfortunately, verifying linearizability is undecidable in general, even on classes of implementations where the usual control-state reachability is decidable. In this work we consider concurrent priority queues which are fundamental to many multi-threaded applications such as task scheduling or discrete event simulation, and show that verifying linearizability of such implementations can be reduced to control-state reachability. This reduction entails the first decidability results for verifying concurrent priority queues in the context of an unbounded number of threads, and it enables the application of existing safety-verification tools for establishing their correctness.Comment: An extended abstract is published in the Proceedings of CONCUR 201

Synthesis with rational environments

Synthesis is the automated construction of a system from its specification. The system has to satisfy its specification in all possible environments. The environment often consists of agents that have objectives of their own. Thus, it makes sense to soften the universal quantification on the behavior of the environment and take the objectives of its underlying agents into an account. Fisman et al. introduced rational synthesis: the problem of synthesis in the context of rational agents. The input to the problem consists of temporal logic formulas specifying the objectives of the system and the agents that constitute the environment, and a solution concept (e.g., Nash equilibrium). The output is a profile of strategies, for the system and the agents, such that the objective of the system is satisfied in the computation that is the outcome of the strategies, and the profile is stable according to the solution concept; that is, the agents that constitute the environment have no incentive to deviate from the strategies suggested to them. In this paper we continue to study rational synthesis. First, we suggest an alternative definition to rational synthesis, in which the agents are rational but not cooperative. We call such problem strong rational synthesis. In the strong rational synthesis setting, one cannot assume that the agents that constitute the environment take into account the strategies suggested to them. Accordingly, the output is a strategy for the system only, and the objective of the system has to be satisfied in all the compositions that are the outcome of a stable profile in which the system follows this strategy. We show that strong rational synthesis is 2ExpTime-complete, thus it is not more complex than traditional synthesis or rational synthesis. Second, we study a richer specification formalism, where the objectives of the system and the agents are not Boolean but quantitative. In this setting, the objective of the system and the agents is to maximize their outcome. The quantitative setting significantly extends the scope of rational synthesis, making the game-theoretic approach much more relevant. Finally, we enrich the setting to one that allows coalitions of agents that constitute the system or the environment

Enhanced sharing analysis techniques: a comprehensive evaluation

Sharing, an abstract domain developed by D. Jacobs and A. Langen for the analysis of logic programs, derives useful aliasing information. It is well-known that a commonly used core of techniques, such as the integration of Sharing with freeness and linearity information, can significantly improve the precision of the analysis. However, a number of other proposals for refined domain combinations have been circulating for years. One feature that is common to these proposals is that they do not seem to have undergone a thorough experimental evaluation even with respect to the expected precision gains. In this paper we experimentally evaluate: helping Sharing with the definitely ground variables found using Pos, the domain of positive Boolean formulas; the incorporation of explicit structural information; a full implementation of the reduced product of Sharing and Pos; the issue of reordering the bindings in the computation of the abstract mgu; an original proposal for the addition of a new mode recording the set of variables that are deemed to be ground or free; a refined way of using linearity to improve the analysis; the recovery of hidden information in the combination of Sharing with freeness information. Finally, we discuss the issue of whether tracking compoundness allows the computation of more sharing information