Bounded Model Checking for Linear Time Temporal-Epistemic Logic

We present a novel approach to the verification of multi-agent systems using bounded model checking for specifications in LTLK, a linear time temporal-epistemic logic. The method is based on binary decision diagrams rather than the standard conversion to Boolean satisfiability. We apply the approach to two classes of interpreted systems: the standard, synchronous semantics and the interleaved semantics. We provide a symbolic algorithm for the verification of LTLK over models of multi-agent systems and evaluate its implementation against MCK, a competing model checker for knowledge. Our evaluation indicates that the interleaved semantics can often be preferable in the verification of LTLK

Rich Counter-Examples for Temporal-Epistemic Logic Model Checking

Model checking verifies that a model of a system satisfies a given property, and otherwise produces a counter-example explaining the violation. The verified properties are formally expressed in temporal logics. Some temporal logics, such as CTL, are branching: they allow to express facts about the whole computation tree of the model, rather than on each single linear computation. This branching aspect is even more critical when dealing with multi-modal logics, i.e. logics expressing facts about systems with several transition relations. A prominent example is CTLK, a logic that reasons about temporal and epistemic properties of multi-agent systems. In general, model checkers produce linear counter-examples for failed properties, composed of a single computation path of the model. But some branching properties are only poorly and partially explained by a linear counter-example. This paper proposes richer counter-example structures called tree-like annotated counter-examples (TLACEs), for properties in Action-Restricted CTL (ARCTL), an extension of CTL quantifying paths restricted in terms of actions labeling transitions of the model. These counter-examples have a branching structure that supports more complete description of property violations. Elements of these counter-examples are annotated with parts of the property to give a better understanding of their structure. Visualization and browsing of these richer counter-examples become a critical issue, as the number of branches and states can grow exponentially for deeply-nested properties. This paper formally defines the structure of TLACEs, characterizes adequate counter-examples w.r.t. models and failed properties, and gives a generation algorithm for ARCTL properties. It also illustrates the approach with examples in CTLK, using a reduction of CTLK to ARCTL. The proposed approach has been implemented, first by extending the NuSMV model checker to generate and export branching counter-examples, secondly by providing an interactive graphical interface to visualize and browse them.Comment: In Proceedings IWIGP 2012, arXiv:1202.422

Verification of Agent-Based Artifact Systems

Artifact systems are a novel paradigm for specifying and implementing business processes described in terms of interacting modules called artifacts. Artifacts consist of data and lifecycles, accounting respectively for the relational structure of the artifacts' states and their possible evolutions over time. In this paper we put forward artifact-centric multi-agent systems, a novel formalisation of artifact systems in the context of multi-agent systems operating on them. Differently from the usual process-based models of services, the semantics we give explicitly accounts for the data structures on which artifact systems are defined. We study the model checking problem for artifact-centric multi-agent systems against specifications written in a quantified version of temporal-epistemic logic expressing the knowledge of the agents in the exchange. We begin by noting that the problem is undecidable in general. We then identify two noteworthy restrictions, one syntactical and one semantical, that enable us to find bisimilar finite abstractions and therefore reduce the model checking problem to the instance on finite models. Under these assumptions we show that the model checking problem for these systems is EXPSPACE-complete. We then introduce artifact-centric programs, compact and declarative representations of the programs governing both the artifact system and the agents. We show that, while these in principle generate infinite-state systems, under natural conditions their verification problem can be solved on finite abstractions that can be effectively computed from the programs. Finally we exemplify the theoretical results of the paper through a mainstream procurement scenario from the artifact systems literature

MCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications

We introduce MCMAS-SLK, a BDD-based model checker for the verification of systems against specifications expressed in a novel, epistemic variant of strategy logic. We give syntax and semantics of the specification language and introduce a labelling algorithm for epistemic and strategy logic modalities. We provide details of the checker which can also be used for synthesising agents' strategies so that a specification is satisfied by the system. We evaluate the efficiency of the implementation by discussing the results obtained for the dining cryptographers protocol and a variant of the cake-cutting problem

A Temporal Logic for Hyperproperties

Hyperproperties, as introduced by Clarkson and Schneider, characterize the correctness of a computer program as a condition on its set of computation paths. Standard temporal logics can only refer to a single path at a time, and therefore cannot express many hyperproperties of interest, including noninterference and other important properties in security and coding theory. In this paper, we investigate an extension of temporal logic with explicit path variables. We show that the quantification over paths naturally subsumes other extensions of temporal logic with operators for information flow and knowledge. The model checking problem for temporal logic with path quantification is decidable. For alternation depth 1, the complexity is PSPACE in the length of the formula and NLOGSPACE in the size of the system, as for linear-time temporal logic