Improved Algorithms for Parity and Streett objectives

The computation of the winning set for parity objectives and for Streett objectives in graphs as well as in game graphs are central problems in computer-aided verification, with application to the verification of closed systems with strong fairness conditions, the verification of open systems, checking interface compatibility, well-formedness of specifications, and the synthesis of reactive systems. We show how to compute the winning set on $n$ vertices for (1) parity-3 (aka one-pair Streett) objectives in game graphs in time $O(n^{5/2})$ and for (2) k-pair Streett objectives in graphs in time $O(n^2 + nk \log n)$. For both problems this gives faster algorithms for dense graphs and represents the first improvement in asymptotic running time in 15 years

A Multi-Core Solver for Parity Games

We describe a parallel algorithm for solving parity games,\ud with applications in, e.g., modal mu-calculus model\ud checking with arbitrary alternations, and (branching) bisimulation\ud checking. The algorithm is based on Jurdzinski's Small Progress\ud Measures. Actually, this is a class of algorithms, depending on\ud a selection heuristics.\ud \ud Our algorithm operates lock-free, and mostly wait-free (except for\ud infrequent termination detection), and thus allows maximum\ud parallelism. Additionally, we conserve memory by avoiding storage\ud of predecessor edges for the parity graph through strictly\ud forward-looking heuristics.\ud \ud We evaluate our multi-core implementation's behaviour on parity games\ud obtained from mu-calculus model checking problems for a set of\ud communication protocols, randomly generated problem instances, and\ud parametric problem instances from the literature.\ud \u

A Comparison of BDD-Based Parity Game Solvers

Parity games are two player games with omega-winning conditions, played on finite graphs. Such games play an important role in verification, satisfiability and synthesis. It is therefore important to identify algorithms that can efficiently deal with large games that arise from such applications. In this paper, we describe our experiments with BDD-based implementations of four parity game solving algorithms, viz. Zielonka's recursive algorithm, the more recent Priority Promotion algorithm, the Fixpoint-Iteration algorithm and the automata based APT algorithm. We compare their performance on several types of random games and on a number of cases taken from the Keiren benchmark set.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2018, arXiv:1809.0241

Quasipolynomial Set-Based Symbolic Algorithms for Parity Games

Solving parity games, which are equivalent to modal $\mu$-calculus model checking, is a central algorithmic problem in formal methods. Besides the standard computation model with the explicit representation of games, another important theoretical model of computation is that of set-based symbolic algorithms. Set-based symbolic algorithms use basic set operations and one-step predecessor operations on the implicit description of games, rather than the explicit representation. The significance of symbolic algorithms is that they provide scalable algorithms for large finite-state systems, as well as for infinite-state systems with finite quotient. Consider parity games on graphs with $n$ vertices and parity conditions with $d$ priorities. While there is a rich literature of explicit algorithms for parity games, the main results for set-based symbolic algorithms are as follows: (a) an algorithm that requires $O(n^d)$ symbolic operations and $O(d)$ symbolic space; and (b) an improved algorithm that requires $O(n^{d/3+1})$ symbolic operations and $O(n)$ symbolic space. Our contributions are as follows: (1) We present a black-box set-based symbolic algorithm based on the explicit progress measure algorithm. Two important consequences of our algorithm are as follows: (a) a set-based symbolic algorithm for parity games that requires quasi-polynomially many symbolic operations and $O(n)$ symbolic space; and (b) any future improvement in progress measure based explicit algorithms imply an efficiency improvement in our set-based symbolic algorithm for parity games. (2) We present a set-based symbolic algorithm that requires quasi-polynomially many symbolic operations and $O(d \cdot \log n)$ symbolic space. Moreover, for the important special case of $d \leq \log n$, our algorithm requires only polynomially many symbolic operations and poly-logarithmic symbolic space.Comment: Published at LPAR-22 in 201

Improved set-based symbolic algorithms for parity games

Graph games with omega-regular winning conditions provide a mathematical framework to analyze a wide range of problems in the analysis of reactive systems and programs (such as the synthesis of reactive systems, program repair, and the verification of branching time properties). Parity conditions are canonical forms to specify omega-regular winning conditions. Graph games with parity conditions are equivalent to mu-calculus model checking, and thus a very important algorithmic problem. Symbolic algorithms are of great significance because they provide scalable algorithms for the analysis of large finite-state systems, as well as algorithms for the analysis of infinite-state systems with finite quotient. A set-based symbolic algorithm uses the basic set operations and the one-step predecessor operators. We consider graph games with n vertices and parity conditions with c priorities (equivalently, a mu-calculus formula with c alternations of least and greatest fixed points). While many explicit algorithms exist for graph games with parity conditions, for set-based symbolic algorithms there are only two algorithms (notice that we use space to refer to the number of sets stored by a symbolic algorithm): (a) the basic algorithm that requires O(n^c) symbolic operations and linear space; and (b) an improved algorithm that requires O(n^{c/2+1}) symbolic operations but also O(n^{c/2+1}) space (i.e., exponential space). In this work we present two set-based symbolic algorithms for parity games: (a) our first algorithm requires O(n^{c/2+1}) symbolic operations and only requires linear space; and (b) developing on our first algorithm, we present an algorithm that requires O(n^{c/3+1}) symbolic operations and only linear space. We also present the first linear space set-based symbolic algorithm for parity games that requires at most a sub-exponential number of symbolic operations

Reasoning about LTL Synthesis over finite and infinite games

In the last few years, research formal methods for the analysis and the verification of properties of systems has increased greatly. A meaningful contribution in this area has been given by algorithmic methods developed in the context of synthesis. The basic idea is simple and appealing: instead of developing a system and verifying that it satisfies its specification, we look for an automated procedure that, given the specification returns a system that is correct by construction. Synthesis of reactive systems is one of the most popular variants of this problem, in which we want to synthesize a system characterized by an ongoing interaction with the environment. In this setting, large effort has been devoted to analyze specifications given as formulas of linear temporal logic, i.e., LTL synthesis. Traditional approaches to LTL synthesis rely on transforming the LTL specification into parity deterministic automata, and then to parity games, for which a so-called winning region is computed. Computing such an automaton is, in the worst-case, double-exponential in the size of the LTL formula, and this becomes a computational bottleneck in using the synthesis process in practice. The first part of this thesis is devoted to improve the solution of parity games as they are used in solving LTL synthesis, trying to give efficient techniques, in terms of running time and space consumption, for solving parity games. We start with the study and the implementation of an automata-theoretic technique to solve parity games. More precisely, we consider an algorithm introduced by Kupferman and Vardi that solves a parity game by solving the emptiness problem of a corresponding alternating parity automaton. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that this algorithm outperforms other algorithms when the game has a small number of priorities relative to the size of the game. In many concrete applications, we do indeed end up with parity games where the number of priorities is relatively small. This makes the new algorithm quite useful in practice. We then provide a broad investigation of the symbolic approach for solving parity games. Specifically, we implement in a fresh tool, called SPGSolver, four symbolic algorithms to solve parity games and compare their performances to the corresponding explicit versions for different classes of games. By means of benchmarks, we show that for random games, even for constrained random games, explicit algorithms actually perform better than symbolic algorithms. The situation changes, however, for structured games, where symbolic algorithms seem to have the advantage. This suggests that when evaluating algorithms for parity-game solving, it would be useful to have real benchmarks and not only random benchmarks, as the common practice has been. LTL synthesis has been largely investigated also in artificial intelligence, and specifically in automated planning. Indeed, LTL synthesis corresponds to fully observable nondeterministic planning in which the domain is given compactly and the goal is an LTL formula, that in turn is related to two-player games with LTL goals. Finding a strategy for these games means to synthesize a plan for the planning problem. The last part of this thesis is then dedicated to investigate LTL synthesis under this different view. In particular, we study a generalized form of planning under partial observability, in which we have multiple, possibly infinitely many, planning domains with the same actions and observations, and goals expressed over observations, which are possibly temporally extended. By building on work on two-player games with imperfect information in the Formal Methods literature, we devise a general technique, generalizing the belief-state construction, to remove partial observability. This reduces the planning problem to a game of perfect information with a tight correspondence between plans and strategies. Then we instantiate the technique and solve some generalized planning problems

LNCS

Systems ought to behave reasonably even in circumstances that are not anticipated in their specifications. We propose a definition of robustness for liveness specifications which prescribes, for any number of environment assumptions that are violated, a minimal number of system guarantees that must still be fulfilled. This notion of robustness can be formulated and realized using a Generalized Reactivity formula. We present an algorithm for synthesizing robust systems from such formulas. For the important special case of Generalized Reactivity formulas of rank 1, our algorithm improves the complexity of [PPS06] for large specifications with a small number of assumptions and guarantees

LIPIcs

One central issue in the formal design and analysis of reactive systems is the notion of refinement that asks whether all behaviors of the implementation is allowed by the specification. The local interpretation of behavior leads to the notion of simulation. Alternating transition systems (ATSs) provide a general model for composite reactive systems, and the simulation relation for ATSs is known as alternating simulation. The simulation relation for fair transition systems is called fair simulation. In this work our main contributions are as follows: (1) We present an improved algorithm for fair simulation with Büchi fairness constraints; our algorithm requires O(n 3·m) time as compared to the previous known O(n 6)-time algorithm, where n is the number of states and m is the number of transitions. (2) We present a game based algorithm for alternating simulation that requires O(m2)-time as compared to the previous known O((n·m)2)-time algorithm, where n is the number of states and m is the size of transition relation. (3) We present an iterative algorithm for alternating simulation that matches the time complexity of the game based algorithm, but is more space efficient than the game based algorithm. © Krishnendu Chatterjee, Siddhesh Chaubal, and Pritish Kamath