IST Austria Technical Report

We consider probabilistic automata on infinite words with acceptance defined by parity conditions. We consider three qualitative decision problems: (i) the positive decision problem asks whether there is a word that is accepted with positive probability; (ii) the almost decision problem asks whether there is a word that is accepted with probability 1; and (iii) the limit decision problem asks whether for every ε > 0 there is a word that is accepted with probability at least 1 − ε. We unify and generalize several decidability results for probabilistic automata over infinite words, and identify a robust (closed under union and intersection) subclass of probabilistic automata for which all the qualitative decision problems are decidable for parity conditions. We also show that if the input words are restricted to lasso shape words, then the positive and almost problems are decidable for all probabilistic automata with parity conditions

The Decidability Frontier for Probabilistic Automata on Infinite Words

We consider probabilistic automata on infinite words with acceptance defined by safety, reachability, B\"uchi, coB\"uchi, and limit-average conditions. We consider quantitative and qualitative decision problems. We present extensions and adaptations of proofs for probabilistic finite automata and present a complete characterization of the decidability and undecidability frontier of the quantitative and qualitative decision problems for probabilistic automata on infinite words

What is known about the Value 1 Problem for Probabilistic Automata?

The value 1 problem is a decision problem for probabilistic automata over finite words: are there words accepted by the automaton with arbitrarily high probability? Although undecidable, this problem attracted a lot of attention over the last few years. The aim of this paper is to review and relate the results pertaining to the value 1 problem. In particular, several algorithms have been proposed to partially solve this problem. We show the relations between them, leading to the following conclusion: the Markov Monoid Algorithm is the most correct algorithm known to (partially) solve the value 1 problem

Probabilistic Opacity for Markov Decision Processes

Opacity is a generic security property, that has been defined on (non probabilistic) transition systems and later on Markov chains with labels. For a secret predicate, given as a subset of runs, and a function describing the view of an external observer, the value of interest for opacity is a measure of the set of runs disclosing the secret. We extend this definition to the richer framework of Markov decision processes, where non deterministic choice is combined with probabilistic transitions, and we study related decidability problems with partial or complete observation hypotheses for the schedulers. We prove that all questions are decidable with complete observation and $\omega$-regular secrets. With partial observation, we prove that all quantitative questions are undecidable but the question whether a system is almost surely non opaque becomes decidable for a restricted class of $\omega$-regular secrets, as well as for all $\omega$-regular secrets under finite-memory schedulers

Deciding the value 1 problem for probabilistic leaktight automata

The value 1 problem is a decision problem for probabilistic automata over finite words: given a probabilistic automaton, are there words accepted with probability arbitrarily close to 1? This problem was proved undecidable recently; to overcome this, several classes of probabilistic automata of different nature were proposed, for which the value 1 problem has been shown decidable. In this paper, we introduce yet another class of probabilistic automata, called leaktight automata, which strictly subsumes all classes of probabilistic automata whose value 1 problem is known to be decidable. We prove that for leaktight automata, the value 1 problem is decidable (in fact, PSPACE-complete) by constructing a saturation algorithm based on the computation of a monoid abstracting the behaviours of the automaton. We rely on algebraic techniques developed by Simon to prove that this abstraction is complete. Furthermore, we adapt this saturation algorithm to decide whether an automaton is leaktight. Finally, we show a reduction allowing to extend our decidability results from finite words to infinite ones, implying that the value 1 problem for probabilistic leaktight parity automata is decidable

Decisive Markov Chains

We consider qualitative and quantitative verification problems for infinite-state Markov chains. We call a Markov chain decisive w.r.t. a given set of target states F if it almost certainly eventually reaches either F or a state from which F can no longer be reached. While all finite Markov chains are trivially decisive (for every set F), this also holds for many classes of infinite Markov chains. Infinite Markov chains which contain a finite attractor are decisive w.r.t. every set F. In particular, this holds for probabilistic lossy channel systems (PLCS). Furthermore, all globally coarse Markov chains are decisive. This class includes probabilistic vector addition systems (PVASS) and probabilistic noisy Turing machines (PNTM). We consider both safety and liveness problems for decisive Markov chains, i.e., the probabilities that a given set of states F is eventually reached or reached infinitely often, respectively. 1. We express the qualitative problems in abstract terms for decisive Markov chains, and show an almost complete picture of its decidability for PLCS, PVASS and PNTM. 2. We also show that the path enumeration algorithm of Iyer and Narasimha terminates for decisive Markov chains and can thus be used to solve the approximate quantitative safety problem. A modified variant of this algorithm solves the approximate quantitative liveness problem. 3. Finally, we show that the exact probability of (repeatedly) reaching F cannot be effectively expressed (in a uniform way) in Tarski-algebra for either PLCS, PVASS or (P)NTM.Comment: 32 pages, 0 figure

Model Checking Probabilistic Pushdown Automata

We consider the model checking problem for probabilistic pushdown automata (pPDA) and properties expressible in various probabilistic logics. We start with properties that can be formulated as instances of a generalized random walk problem. We prove that both qualitative and quantitative model checking for this class of properties and pPDA is decidable. Then we show that model checking for the qualitative fragment of the logic PCTL and pPDA is also decidable. Moreover, we develop an error-tolerant model checking algorithm for PCTL and the subclass of stateless pPDA. Finally, we consider the class of omega-regular properties and show that both qualitative and quantitative model checking for pPDA is decidable

Model-checking branching-time properties of probabilistic automata and probabilistic one-counter automata

This paper studies the problem of model-checking of probabilistic automaton and probabilistic one-counter automata against probabilistic branching-time temporal logics (PCTL and PCTL$^*$). We show that it is undecidable for these problems. We first show, by reducing to emptiness problem of probabilistic automata, that the model-checking of probabilistic finite automata against branching-time temporal logics are undecidable. And then, for each probabilistic automata, by constructing a probabilistic one-counter automaton with the same behavior as questioned probabilistic automata the undecidability of model-checking problems against branching-time temporal logics are derived, herein.Comment: Comments are welcom

Synchronizing weighted automata

We introduce two generalizations of synchronizability to automata with transitions weighted in an arbitrary semiring K=(K,+,*,0,1). (or equivalently, to finite sets of matrices in K^nxn.) Let us call a matrix A location-synchronizing if there exists a column in A consisting of nonzero entries such that all the other columns of A are filled by zeros. If additionally all the entries of this designated column are the same, we call A synchronizing. Note that these notions coincide for stochastic matrices and also in the Boolean semiring. A set M of matrices in K^nxn is called (location-)synchronizing if M generates a matrix subsemigroup containing a (location-)synchronizing matrix. The K-(location-)synchronizability problem is the following: given a finite set M of nxn matrices with entries in K, is it (location-)synchronizing? Both problems are PSPACE-hard for any nontrivial semiring. We give sufficient conditions for the semiring K when the problems are PSPACE-complete and show several undecidability results as well, e.g. synchronizability is undecidable if 1 has infinite order in (K,+,0) or when the free semigroup on two generators can be embedded into (K,*,1).Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527