Parameter Synthesis for Markov Models

Markov chain analysis is a key technique in reliability engineering. A practical obstacle is that all probabilities in Markov models need to be known. However, system quantities such as failure rates or packet loss ratios, etc. are often not---or only partially---known. This motivates considering parametric models with transitions labeled with functions over parameters. Whereas traditional Markov chain analysis evaluates a reliability metric for a single, fixed set of probabilities, analysing parametric Markov models focuses on synthesising parameter values that establish a given reliability or performance specification $\varphi$. Examples are: what component failure rates ensure the probability of a system breakdown to be below 0.00000001?, or which failure rates maximise reliability? This paper presents various analysis algorithms for parametric Markov chains and Markov decision processes. We focus on three problems: (a) do all parameter values within a given region satisfy $\varphi$?, (b) which regions satisfy $\varphi$ and which ones do not?, and (c) an approximate version of (b) focusing on covering a large fraction of all possible parameter values. We give a detailed account of the various algorithms, present a software tool realising these techniques, and report on an extensive experimental evaluation on benchmarks that span a wide range of applications.Comment: 38 page

On Correctness, Precision, and Performance in Quantitative Verification: QComp 2020 Competition Report

Quantitative verification tools compute probabilities, expected rewards, or steady-state values for formal models of stochastic and timed systems. Exact results often cannot be obtained efficiently, so most tools use floating-point arithmetic in iterative algorithms that approximate the quantity of interest. Correctness is thus defined by the desired precision and determines performance. In this paper, we report on the experimental evaluation of these trade-offs performed in QComp 2020: the second friendly competition of tools for the analysis of quantitative formal models. We survey the precision guarantees - ranging from exact rational results to statistical confidence statements - offered by the nine participating tools. They gave rise to a performance evaluation using five tracks with varying correctness criteria, of which we present the results