Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article
Free access

The complexity of probabilistic verification

Published: 01 July 1995 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    We determine the complexity of testing whether a finite state, sequential or concurrent probabilistic program satisfies its specification expressed in linear-time temporal logic. For sequential programs, we present an algorithm that runs in time linear in the program and exponential in the specification, and also show that the problem is in PSPACE, matching the known lower bound. For concurrent programs, we show that the problem can be solved in time polynomial in the program and doubly exponential in the specification, and prove that it is complete for double exponential time. We also address these questions for specifications described by ω-automata or formulas in extended temporal logic.

    References

    [1]
    ~AHO, A. V., HOPCROFT, J., AND ULLMAN, J. D. t974. The Design and Analysis of Computer ~Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
    [2]
    ~BREIMAN, L. 1968. Probabih_ty, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
    [3]
    ~BUCHi, J. R. 1962. On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. In Procee&ngs of ~the Intemattonal Congress on Logic. Method and Phdosophzcal Science. pp. 1 12.
    [4]
    ~BUCHi, J. R. 1973. The monadic second-order theory of ro1. In Decidable Theories If. Lecture ~Notes in Mathematics, vol. 328. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 1-128.
    [5]
    ~CHANDRA, A. m., KOZEN, D. C., AND STOCKMEYER, L. J. 1981. Alternation. J. ACM 28, 1 (Jan.) ~pp. 114-133.
    [6]
    ~CHOUEkA, Y. 1974. Theories of automata on w-tapes: A simplified approach. J. Comput. Syst. ~Scl. 8, 117-141.
    [7]
    ~LARKE, E. M., EMERSON, E. A., AND SISTLA, A. P. 1983. Automatic verification of finite-state ~concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications: A practical approach. In Proceedings of ~the lOth Annual ACM Symposium on Pnnciples of Programming Languages (Austin, Tex., Jan. ~24-26). ACM, New York, pp. 117 126.
    [8]
    ~COURCOUBETIS~ C., AND YANNAKAKIS, M. 1990. Markov decision processes and regular events. ~In Proc. of the 17th Intl. Colloquzum on Automata, Languages and Programming. pp. 336-349.
    [9]
    ~EMERSON, E. A., AND HALPERN, J. Y. 1983. "Sometimes" and "Not Never" revisited: On ~branching vs. linear time. In Proceedings of lOth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of ~Programming Languages (Austin, Tex., Jan. 24-26). ACM, New York, pp. 127-140.
    [10]
    ~EMERSON, E. m., AND LEI, C. L. 1985. Modalities for model checking: Branching time strikes ~back. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM S3,mposzum on Principles of Programming Lan- ~guages (New Orleans, La., Jan. 14-16). ACM. New York, pp. 84 96.
    [11]
    ~EMERSON, E. A. AND SISTLA, m. P. 1983. A triple exponential decision procedure for CTL*. In ~CMU Workshop on Logic oJ Programs. Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa.
    [12]
    ~FRANCEZ, N., AND RODEH, M. 1980. A distributed data type implemented by a probabilistic ~communication scheme. In Proceedings of 21st IEEE Symposium on Foundattons of Computer ~Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 373-379.
    [13]
    ~GABBY, D., PNUELI, A., SHELAH, S., AND STAVI, J. 1980. On the temporal analysis of fairness. In ~Proceedings of 7th Annual ACM Sympostum on Principles of Programming Languages (Las Vegas, ~Nev., Jan. 28 30). ACM, New York, pp. 163-173.
    [14]
    ~HART, S., AND SHARIR, M. 1984. Probabilistic temporal logic for finite and bounded models. In ~Proceedings of the lOth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Washington, D.C., ~Apr. 30-May 2). ACM, New York, pp. 1-13.
    [15]
    ~HART, S., SHARIR, M., AND PNUELI, A. 1983. Termination of probabilistie concurrent programs. ~ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst. 5, 3 (July), 356-380.
    [16]
    ~KEMENY, J. G., SNELL, J. L., AND KNAPP, A. W. 1976. Denumerable Markov Chains. Springer- ~Verlag, New York.
    [17]
    ~LEHMAN, D., AND RABIN, M. O. t981. On the advantage of free choice: A symmetric and fully ~distributed solution to the dining philosophers problem. In Proceedings of the 8th AnnualACM ~Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (Williamsburg, Va., Jan. 26 28). ACM, New ~York, pp. 133-138.
    [18]
    ~LEHMAN, D., AND SHELAH, S. 1982. Reasoning with time and chance. Inf. Control 53, 165-198.
    [19]
    ~LICHTENSTEIN, O, AND PNUELI, A. i985. Checking that finite-state concurrent programs samfy ~their linear specification. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Princzples of ~ProgrammmgLanguages (New Orleans, La., Jan. 14 16). ACM, New York, pp. 97-107.
    [20]
    ~MCNAUGHTON, R. 1966. Testing and generating infinite sequences by a finite automaton. Inf. ~Contr. 9, 521-530.
    [21]
    PNUELI, A. 1981. The temporal logic of concurrent programs. Theoret. Comput. Scl. 73, 45 60.
    [22]
    PNUELI, A. 1983. On the extremely fair treatment of probabilistic algorithms. In Proceedings of ~&e 15& Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computmg (Boston, Mass., Apr. 25-27). ACM, ~New York, pp. 278-290.
    [23]
    ~PNUELI, A., AND ZUCK, L. 1986. Probabilistic verification by tableaux. In Proceedings of the l~t ~Symposium on Logm in Computer Science. IEEE, New York.
    [24]
    ~QUEILLE, J. P., AND SIFAKIS, J. 1982. Fairness and related properties in transition systems. ~Research Report #292. IMAG, Grenoble, Switzerland.
    [25]
    ~RABtN, M. O. 1072. Automata on infinite objects and Church's problem. In Proceedings of the ~RegtonalAMS Conference Series m Mathematm~, vol. 13. AMS, Providence, R.I., pp. 1-22.
    [26]
    ~SAFRA, S. 1988. On the complexity of w-automata. In Proceedings of tile 29th IEEE Symposium ~on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New York, pp. 319-327.
    [27]
    ~SISTLA, A. P.~ AND CLARKE, E. M. 1985. The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics. ~J. ACM 32, 3 (July), 733-749.
    [28]
    ~SISTLA, A. P., VARDI, M. Y., AND WOLPER, P. 1987. The complimentation problem for Buchi ~automata with application to temporal logic. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 49, 217-237.
    [29]
    ~VARm, M. 1985. Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs. In ~Proceedings of 26th 1EEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Sctence. IEEE, New York, ~pp. 327-338.
    [30]
    ~VARDI, m., AND WOLPER, P. 1986. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program ~verification. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Logic in Computer Sctence. IEEE, New ~York.
    [31]
    ~WOLPER, P., VARDI, M. Y., AND SISTLA, A. P. 1983. Reasoning about infinite computation paths. ~In Proceeding,' of tile 24th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, New ~York, pp. 185-194.
    [32]
    ~WOLPER, P. 1983. Temporal logic can be more expressive. Inf. Control 56, 72-99.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Rational Verification with Quantitative Probabilistic GoalsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662941(871-879)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
    • (2024)Playing Games with Your PET: Extending the Partial Exploration Tool to Stochastic GamesComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-031-65633-0_16(359-372)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Composition of Stochastic Services for LTL Goal SpecificationsFoundations of Information and Knowledge Systems10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_17(298-316)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Moshe Vardi

    Program verification has always been a desirable task, but never an easy one. The advent of concurrent programming has made it significantly more necessary and difficult. Indeed, the conceptual complexity of concurrency increases the likelihood of a program containing errors. In the traditional approach to concurrent program verification, the correctness of the program is expressed as a formula in first-order temporal logic. To prove that the program is correct, one has to prove that the correctness formula is a theorem of a certain deductive system. This proof is constructed manually and is usually quite difficult to construct. It often requires an intimate understanding of the program. Furthermore, there is no hope of constructing the proof completely algorithmically. The only extent of automation that one can hope for is to have the proof checked by a machine and, possibly, to have some limited heuristic help in finding the proof. A different approach was introduced in the early 1980s [1] for finite-state programs, that is, programs in which the variables range over finite domains. The significance of this class follows from the fact that a significant number of the communication and synchronization protocols studied in the literature are, in essence, finite-state programs. Thus, to verify the correctness of the program, one has only to check algorithmically that the program, viewed as a finite-state transition system, satisfies (is a model of) a propositional temporal logic specification. This approach, called “verification by model checking,” was described by Apt and Kozen as “one of the most exciting developments in the theory of program correctness.” An extension of the model-checking approach to probabilistic programs was proposed in my paper [2]. Here, the program is modeled as a finite sequential Markov chain or finite concurrent Markov chain. Instead of attempting to verify that all computations of the program satisfy the specification (given by a linear temporal formula), one attempts to verify that the specification holds with probability 1, that is, that the set of computations that satisfy the specification has probability 1. This can be called probabilistic verification. The probability is relative to the probabilistic steps of the program and the worst possible scheduling of the various processes. This definitive paper continues the investigation by studying the complexity of probabilistic verification. It provides tight upper and lower bound. For sequential programs, the problem is shown to be PSPACE-complete, and for concurrent programs, the problem is 2EXPTIME-complete. (2EXPTIME denotes the class of problems that can be solved in doubly exponential time.) In either case, the source of the high complexity is the linear temporal specification; the algorithms run in time that is linear in the size of the program. The fundamental idea is to reduce model checking to the checking of certain graph-theoretic properties of the underlying Markov chain. It turns out that the precise numeric value of the probabilities is irrelevant.

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Journal of the ACM
    Journal of the ACM  Volume 42, Issue 4
    July 1995
    223 pages
    ISSN:0004-5411
    EISSN:1557-735X
    DOI:10.1145/210332
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 July 1995
    Published in JACM Volume 42, Issue 4

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. EXPTIME-complete
    2. Markov chain
    3. PSPACE-complete
    4. automata
    5. model checking
    6. probabilistic algorithm
    7. temporal logic

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)158
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26
    Reflects downloads up to 09 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Rational Verification with Quantitative Probabilistic GoalsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662941(871-879)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
    • (2024)Playing Games with Your PET: Extending the Partial Exploration Tool to Stochastic GamesComputer Aided Verification10.1007/978-3-031-65633-0_16(359-372)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Composition of Stochastic Services for LTL Goal SpecificationsFoundations of Information and Knowledge Systems10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_17(298-316)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
    • (2023)Qualitative reachability for open interval Markov chainsPeerJ Computer Science10.7717/peerj-cs.14899(e1489)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Model checking for adversarial multi-agent reinforcement learning with reactive defense methodsProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27191(162-170)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Stochastic Games with Synchronization ObjectivesJournal of the ACM10.1145/358886670:3(1-35)Online publication date: 23-May-2023
    • (2023)Enforcing Resilience in Cyber-physical Systems via Equilibrium Verification at RuntimeACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems10.1145/358436418:3(1-32)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2023
    • (2023)The Smoothed Complexity of Policy Iteration for Markov Decision ProcessesProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing10.1145/3564246.3585220(1890-1903)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Efficient Strategy Synthesis for MDPs With Resource ConstraintsIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control10.1109/TAC.2022.320961268:8(4586-4601)Online publication date: Aug-2023
    • (2023)Optimal Probabilistic Motion Planning With Potential Infeasible LTL ConstraintsIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control10.1109/TAC.2021.313870468:1(301-316)Online publication date: Jan-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media