The Planning Spectrum - One, Two, Three, Infinity

Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) is widely used for defining conditions on the execution paths of dynamic systems. In the case of dynamic systems that allow for nondeterministic evolutions, one has to specify, along with an LTL formula f, which are the paths that are required to satisfy the formula. Two extreme cases are the universal interpretation A.f, which requires that the formula be satisfied for all execution paths, and the existential interpretation E.f, which requires that the formula be satisfied for some execution path. When LTL is applied to the definition of goals in planning problems on nondeterministic domains, these two extreme cases are too restrictive. It is often impossible to develop plans that achieve the goal in all the nondeterministic evolutions of a system, and it is too weak to require that the goal is satisfied by some execution. In this paper we explore alternative interpretations of an LTL formula that are between these extreme cases. We define a new language that permits an arbitrary combination of the A and E quantifiers, thus allowing, for instance, to require that each finite execution can be extended to an execution satisfying an LTL formula (AE.f), or that there is some finite execution whose extensions all satisfy an LTL formula (EA.f). We show that only eight of these combinations of path quantifiers are relevant, corresponding to an alternation of the quantifiers of length one (A and E), two (AE and EA), three (AEA and EAE), and infinity ((AE)* and (EA)*). We also present a planning algorithm for the new language that is based on an automata-theoretic approach, and study its complexity

Comparator automata in quantitative verification

The notion of comparison between system runs is fundamental in formal verification. This concept is implicitly present in the verification of qualitative systems, and is more pronounced in the verification of quantitative systems. In this work, we identify a novel mode of comparison in quantitative systems: the online comparison of the aggregate values of two sequences of quantitative weights. This notion is embodied by {\em comparator automata} ({\em comparators}, in short), a new class of automata that read two infinite sequences of weights synchronously and relate their aggregate values. We show that {aggregate functions} that can be represented with B\"uchi automaton result in comparators that are finite-state and accept by the B\"uchi condition as well. Such {\em $\omega$-regular comparators} further lead to generic algorithms for a number of well-studied problems, including the quantitative inclusion and winning strategies in quantitative graph games with incomplete information, as well as related non-decision problems, such as obtaining a finite representation of all counterexamples in the quantitative inclusion problem. We study comparators for two aggregate functions: discounted-sum and limit-average. We prove that the discounted-sum comparator is $\omega$-regular iff the discount-factor is an integer. Not every aggregate function, however, has an $\omega$-regular comparator. Specifically, we show that the language of sequence-pairs for which limit-average aggregates exist is neither $\omega$-regular nor $\omega$-context-free. Given this result, we introduce the notion of {\em prefix-average} as a relaxation of limit-average aggregation, and show that it admits $\omega$-context-free comparators

Flow Games

In the traditional maximal-flow problem, the goal is to transfer maximum flow in a network by directing, in each vertex in the network, incoming flow into outgoing edges. While the problem has been extensively used in order to optimize the performance of networks in numerous application areas, it corresponds to a setting in which the authority has control on all vertices of the network. Today\u27s computing environment involves parties that should be considered adversarial. We introduce and study {em flow games}, which capture settings in which the authority can control only part of the vertices. In these games, the vertices are partitioned between two players: the authority and the environment. While the authority aims at maximizing the flow, the environment need not cooperate. We argue that flow games capture many modern settings, such as partially-controlled pipe or road systems or hybrid software-defined communication networks. We show that the problem of finding the maximal flow as well as an optimal strategy for the authority in an acyclic flow game is $Sigma_2^P$-complete, and is already $Sigma_2^P$-hard to approximate. We study variants of the game: a restriction to strategies that ensure no loss of flow, an extension to strategies that allow non-integral flows, which we prove to be stronger, and a dynamic setting in which a strategy for a vertex is chosen only once flow reaches the vertex. We discuss additional variants and their applications, and point to several interesting open problems

Balancing Scalability and Uniformity in SAT Witness Generator

Constrained-random simulation is the predominant approach used in the industry for functional verification of complex digital designs. The effectiveness of this approach depends on two key factors: the quality of constraints used to generate test vectors, and the randomness of solutions generated from a given set of constraints. In this paper, we focus on the second problem, and present an algorithm that significantly improves the state-of-the-art of (almost-)uniform generation of solutions of large Boolean constraints. Our algorithm provides strong theoretical guarantees on the uniformity of generated solutions and scales to problems involving hundreds of thousands of variables.Comment: This is a full version of DAC 2014 pape

Solving parity games: Explicit vs symbolic

In this paper we provide a broad investigation of the symbolic approach for solving Parity Games. Specifically, we implement in a fresh tool, called, four symbolic algorithms to solve Parity Games and compare their performances to the corresponding explicit versions for different classes of games. By means of benchmarks, we show that for random games, even for constrained random games, explicit algorithms actually perform better than symbolic algorithms. The situation changes, however, for structured games, where symbolic algorithms seem to have the advantage. This suggests that when evaluating algorithms for parity-game solving, it would be useful to have real benchmarks and not only random benchmarks, as the common practice has been

Branching vs. Linear Time: Semantical Perspective

The discussion of the relative merits of linear- versus branching-time frameworks goes back to the early 1980s. We revisit here this issue from a fresh perspective and postulate three principles that we view as fundamental to any discussion of process equivalence. We show that our principles yield a unique notion of process equivalence, which is trace based, rather than tree based