Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3641513.3651397acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

CTL Model Checking of MDPs over Distribution Spaces: Algorithms and Sampling-based Computations

Published: 14 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

This work studies computation tree logic (CTL) model checking for finite-state Markov decision processes (MDPs) over the space of their distributions. Instead of investigating properties over states of the MDP, as encoded by formulae in standard probabilistic CTL (PCTL), the focus of this work is on the associated transition system, which is induced by the MDP, and on its dynamics over the (transient) MDP distributions. CTL is thus used to specify properties over the space of distributions, and is shown to provide an alternative way to express probabilistic specifications or requirements over the given MDP. We discuss the distinctive semantics of CTL formulae over distribution spaces, compare them to existing non-branching logics that reason on probability distributions, and juxtapose them to traditional PCTL specifications. We then propose reachability-based CTL model checking algorithms over distribution spaces, as well as computationally tractable, sampling-based procedures for computing the relevant reachable sets: it is in particular shown that the satisfaction set of the CTL specification can be soundly under-approximated by the union of convex polytopes. Case studies display the scalability of these procedures to large MDPs.

References

[1]
[n. d.]. MOSEK Software. https://www.mosek.com/
[2]
Manindra Agrawal, Sundararaman Akshay, Blaise Genest, and PS Thiagarajan. 2015. Approximate verification of the symbolic dynamics of Markov chains. J. ACM 62, 1 (2015), 1–34.
[3]
S Akshay, Timos Antonopoulos, Joël Ouaknine, and James Worrell. 2015. Reachability problems for Markov chains. Inform. Process. Lett. 115, 2 (2015), 155–158.
[4]
S Akshay, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Tobias Meggendorfer, and Đorđe Žikelić. 2023. MDPs as distribution transformers: affine invariant synthesis for safety objectives. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 86–112.
[5]
S Akshay, Blaise Genest, and Nikhil Vyas. 2018. Distribution-based objectives for Markov Decision Processes. In 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 36–45.
[6]
Eitan Altman. 1999. Constrained Markov Decision Processes: Stochastic Modeling. Routledge.
[7]
Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT press.
[8]
C Bradford Barber, David P Dobkin, and Hannu Huhdanpaa. 1996. The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 22, 4 (1996), 469–483.
[9]
Daniele Beauquier, Alexander Rabinovich, and Anatol Slissenko. 2002. A logic of probability with decidable model-checking. In International Workshop on Computer Science Logic. 306–321.
[10]
Calin Belta, Boyan Yordanov, and Ebru Aydin Gol. 2017. Formal Methods for Discrete-time Dynamical Systems. Springer.
[11]
Rohit Chadha, Vijay Anand Korthikanti, Mahesh Viswanathan, Gul Agha, and YoungMin Kwon. 2011. Model checking MDPs with a unique compact invariant set of distributions. In 8th International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. 121–130.
[12]
Edmund M Clarke and E Allen Emerson. 1981. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In Workshop on Logic of Programs. 52–71.
[13]
Edmund M. Clarke, E Allen Emerson, and A Prasad Sistla. 1986. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 8, 2 (1986), 244–263.
[14]
Giacomo Como and Fabio Fagnani. 2015. Robustness of large-scale stochastic matrices to localized perturbations. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 2, 2 (2015), 53–64.
[15]
Christian Dehnert, Sebastian Junges, Joost-Pieter Katoen, and Matthias Volk. 2017. A STORM is coming: A modern probabilistic model checker. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 592–600.
[16]
Ioannis Z Emiris and Vissarion Fisikopoulos. 2018. Practical polytope volume approximation. ACM Trans. Math. Software 44, 4 (2018), 1–21.
[17]
Yuan Feng and Lijun Zhang. 2014. When equivalence and bisimulation join forces in probabilistic automata. In International Symposium on Formal Methods. 247–262.
[18]
Vojtěch Forejt, Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker. 2011. Automated verification techniques for probabilistic systems. In International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems. 53–113.
[19]
Yulong Gao, Karl Henrik Johansson, and Lihua Xie. 2020. Computing probabilistic controlled invariant sets. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 66, 7 (2020), 3138–3151.
[20]
Hans Hansson and Bengt Jonsson. 1994. A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 5 (1994), 512–535.
[21]
M. Herceg, M. Kvasnica, C.N. Jones, and M. Morari. 2013. Multi-Parametric Toolbox 3.0. In European Control Conference. 502–510.
[22]
Holger Hermanns, Jan Krčál, and Jan Křetínskỳ. 2014. Probabilistic bisimulation: naturally on distributions. In International Conference on Concurrency Theory. 249–265.
[23]
Rui-Juan Jing, Marc Moreno-Maza, and Delaram Talaashrafi. 2020. Complexity estimates for Fourier-Motzkin elimination. In 22nd International Workshop on Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing. 282–306.
[24]
Austin Jones, Mac Schwager, and Calin Belta. 2013. Distribution temporal logic: Combining correctness with quality of estimation. In 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. 4719–4724.
[25]
Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2016. The probabilistic model checking landscape. In 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 31–45.
[26]
Vijay Anand Korthikanti, Mahesh Viswanathan, Gul Agha, and YoungMin Kwon. 2010. Reasoning about MDPs as transformers of probability distributions. In 7th International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. 199–208.
[27]
Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker. 2007. Stochastic model checking. In International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems. 220–270.
[28]
Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker. 2009. PRISM: probabilistic model checking for performance and reliability analysis. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 36, 4 (2009), 40–45.
[29]
Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker. 2018. Probabilistic model checking: advances and applications. In Formal System Verification. Springer, 73–121.
[30]
YoungMin Kwon and Gul Agha. 2004. Linear inequality LTL (iLTL): A model checker for discrete time Markov chains. In International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods. 194–208.
[31]
YoungMin Kwon and Gul Agha. 2010. Verifying the evolution of probability distributions governed by a DTMC. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37, 1 (2010), 126–141.
[32]
J. Löfberg. 2004. YALMIP : A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB. In In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference.
[33]
Andreas Löhne and Benjamin Weißing. 2016. Equivalence between polyhedral projection, multiple objective linear programming and vector linear programming. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 84 (2016), 411–426.
[34]
Kenneth L McMillan. 1993. Symbolic Model Checking. Springer.
[35]
R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets. 2009. Variational Analysis. Springer.
[36]
Ilya Tkachev and Alessandro Abate. 2014. Characterization and computation of infinite-horizon specifications over Markov processes. Theoretical Computer Science 515 (2014), 1–18.
[37]
Petter Tøndel, Tor Arne Johansen, and Alberto Bemporad. 2003. An algorithm for multi-parametric quadratic programming and explicit MPC solutions. Automatica 39, 3 (2003), 489–497.
[38]
M. Y. Vardi and L. Stockmeyer. 1985. Improved upper and lower bounds for modal logics of programs. In ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 240–251.
[39]
Yinyu Ye and Edison Tse. 1989. An extension of Karmarkar’s projective algorithm for convex quadratic programming. Mathematical programming 44 (1989), 157–179.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HSCC '24: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control
May 2024
307 pages
ISBN:9798400705229
DOI:10.1145/3641513
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 May 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Markov decision processes
  2. computation tree logic
  3. reachability analysis
  4. transient probability distributions

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  • Swedish Research Council
  • Swedish Research Council

Conference

HSCC '24
Sponsor:
HSCC '24: Computation and Control
May 14 - 16, 2024
Hong Kong SAR, China

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 153 of 373 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 157
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)157
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)52
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media