High-level Counterexamples for Probabilistic Automata

Providing compact and understandable counterexamples for violated system properties is an essential task in model checking. Existing works on counterexamples for probabilistic systems so far computed either a large set of system runs or a subset of the system's states, both of which are of limited use in manual debugging. Many probabilistic systems are described in a guarded command language like the one used by the popular model checker PRISM. In this paper we describe how a smallest possible subset of the commands can be identified which together make the system erroneous. We additionally show how the selected commands can be further simplified to obtain a well-understandable counterexample

Counterexample Generation in Probabilistic Model Checking

Providing evidence for the refutation of a property is an essential, if not the most important, feature of model checking. This paper considers algorithms for counterexample generation for probabilistic CTL formulae in discrete-time Markov chains. Finding the strongest evidence (i.e., the most probable path) violating a (bounded) until-formula is shown to be reducible to a single-source (hop-constrained) shortest path problem. Counterexamples of smallest size that deviate most from the required probability bound can be obtained by applying (small amendments to) k-shortest (hop-constrained) paths algorithms. These results can be extended to Markov chains with rewards, to LTL model checking, and are useful for Markov decision processes. Experimental results show that typically the size of a counterexample is excessive. To obtain much more compact representations, we present a simple algorithm to generate (minimal) regular expressions that can act as counterexamples. The feasibility of our approach is illustrated by means of two communication protocols: leader election in an anonymous ring network and the Crowds protocol

Quantitative Verification: Formal Guarantees for Timeliness, Reliability and Performance

Computerised systems appear in almost all aspects of our daily lives, often in safety-critical scenarios such as embedded control systems in cars and aircraft or medical devices such as pacemakers and sensors. We are thus increasingly reliant on these systems working correctly, despite often operating in unpredictable or unreliable environments. Designers of such devices need ways to guarantee that they will operate in a reliable and efficient manner. Quantitative verification is a technique for analysing quantitative aspects of a system's design, such as timeliness, reliability or performance. It applies formal methods, based on a rigorous analysis of a mathematical model of the system, to automatically prove certain precisely specified properties, e.g. ``the airbag will always deploy within 20 milliseconds after a crash'' or ``the probability of both sensors failing simultaneously is less than 0.001''. The ability to formally guarantee quantitative properties of this kind is beneficial across a wide range of application domains. For example, in safety-critical systems, it may be essential to establish credible bounds on the probability with which certain failures or combinations of failures can occur. In embedded control systems, it is often important to comply with strict constraints on timing or resources. More generally, being able to derive guarantees on precisely specified levels of performance or efficiency is a valuable tool in the design of, for example, wireless networking protocols, robotic systems or power management algorithms, to name but a few. This report gives a short introduction to quantitative verification, focusing in particular on a widely used technique called model checking, and its generalisation to the analysis of quantitative aspects of a system such as timing, probabilistic behaviour or resource usage. The intended audience is industrial designers and developers of systems such as those highlighted above who could benefit from the application of quantitative verification,but lack expertise in formal verification or modelling

Counterfactual Causality from First Principles?

In this position paper we discuss three main shortcomings of existing approaches to counterfactual causality from the computer science perspective, and sketch lines of work to try and overcome these issues: (1) causality definitions should be driven by a set of precisely specified requirements rather than specific examples; (2) causality frameworks should support system dynamics; (3) causality analysis should have a well-understood behavior in presence of abstraction.Comment: In Proceedings CREST 2017, arXiv:1710.0277