Generating Diagnoses for Probabilistic Model Checking Using Causality

One of the most major advantages of Model checking over other formal methods of verification, its ability to generate an error trace in case of a specification falsified in the model. We call this trace a counterexample. However, understanding the counterexample is not that easy task, because model checker generates usually multiple counterexamples of long length, what makes the analysis of counterexample time-consuming as well as costly task. Therefore, counterexamples should be small and as indicative as possible to be understood. In probabilistic model checking (PMC) counterexample generation has a quantitative aspect.  The counterexample in PMC is a set of paths in which a path formula holds, and their accumulative probability mass violates the probability bound. In this paper, we address the complementary task of counterexample generation which is the counterexample diagnosis in PMC. We propose an aided-diagnostic method for probabilistic counterexamples based on the notion of causality and responsibility. Given a counterexample for a Probabilistic CTL (PCTL) formula that doesn’t hold over Discreet-Time-Markov-Chain (DTMC) model, this method guides the user to the most responsible causes in the counterexample.</p

(Anti)-Anti-Intellectualism and the Sufficiency Thesis

Anti-intellectualists about knowledge-how insist that, when an agent S knows how to φ, it is in virtue of some ability, rather than in virtue of any propositional attitudes, S has. Recently, a popular strategy for attacking the anti-intellectualist position proceeds by appealing to cases where an agent is claimed to possess a reliable ability to φ while nonetheless intuitively lacking knowledge-how to φ. John Bengson & Marc Moffett (2009; 2011a; 2011b) and Carlotta Pavese (2015a; 2015b) have embraced precisely this strategy and have thus claimed, for different reasons, that anti-intellectualism is defective on the grounds that possessing the ability to φ is not sufficient for knowing how to φ. We investigate this strategy of argument-by-counterexample to the anti- intellectualist’s sufficiency thesis and show that, at the end of the day, anti-intellectualism remains unscathed