Parity game reductions

Parity games play a central role in model checking and satisfiability checking. Solving parity games is computationally expensive, among others due to the size of the games, which, for model checking problems, can easily contain $10^9$ vertices or beyond. Equivalence relations can be used to reduce the size of a parity game, thereby potentially alleviating part of the computational burden. We reconsider (governed) bisimulation and (governed) stuttering bisimulation, and we give detailed proofs that these relations are equivalences, have unique quotients and they approximate the winning regions of parity games. Furthermore, we present game-based characterisations of these relations. Using these characterisations our equivalences are compared to relations for parity games that can be found in the literature, such as direct simulation equivalence and delayed simulation equivalence. To complete the overview we develop coinductive characterisations of direct- and delayed simulation equivalence and we establish a lattice of equivalences for parity games

Parity game reductions

\u3cp\u3eParity games play a central role in model checking and satisfiability checking. Solving parity games is computationally expensive, among others due to the size of the games, which, for model checking problems, can easily contain (Formula presented.) vertices or beyond. Equivalence relations can be used to reduce the size of a parity game, thereby potentially alleviating part of the computational burden. We reconsider (governed) bisimulation and (governed) stuttering bisimulation, and we give detailed proofs that these relations are equivalences, have unique quotients and they approximate the winning regions of parity games. Furthermore, we present game-based characterisations of these relations. Using these characterisations our equivalences are compared to relations for parity games that can be found in the literature, such as direct simulation equivalence and delayed simulation equivalence. To complete the overview we develop coinductive characterisations of direct- and delayed simulation equivalence and we establish a lattice of equivalences for parity games.\u3c/p\u3

A linear translation from LTL to the first-order modal µ-calculus

The modal µ-calculus is a very expressive temporal logic. In particular, logics such as LTL, CTL and CTL* can be translated into the modal mu-calculus, although existing translations of LTL and CTL* are at least exponential in size. We show that an existing simple first-order extension of the modal µ-calculus allows for a linear translation from LTL. Furthermore, we show that solving the translated formulae is as efficient as the best known methods to solve LTL formulae directly

Solving parameterised boolean equation systems with infinite data through quotienting

Parameterised Boolean Equation Systems (PBESs) can be used to represent many different kinds of decision problems. Most notably, model checking and equivalence problems can be encoded in a PBES. Traditional instantiation techniques cannot deal with PBESs with an infinite data domain. We propose an approach that can solve PBESs with infinite data by computing the bisimulation quotient of the underlying graph structure. Furthermore, we show how this technique can be improved by repeatedly searching for finite proofs. Unlike existing approaches, our technique is not restricted to subfragments of PBESs. Experimental results show that our ideas work well in practice and support a wider range of models and properties than state-of-the-art techniques.</p

The SLCO framework for verified, model-driven construction of component software

\u3cp\u3eWe present the Simple Language of Communicating Objects (Slco) framework, which has resulted from our research on applying formal methods for correct and efficient model-driven development of multi-component software. At the core is a domain specific language called Slco that specifies software behaviour. In this paper, we discuss the language, give an overview of the features of the framework, and discuss our roadmap for the future.\u3c/p\u3