Traditionally, transfer functions have been designed manually for each operation in a program, instruction by instruction. In such a setting, a transfer function describes the semantics of a single instruction, detailing how a given abstract input state is mapped to an abstract output state. The net effect of a sequence of instructions, a basic block, can then be calculated by composing the transfer functions of the constituent instructions. However, precision can be improved by applying a single transfer function that captures the semantics of the block as a whole. Since blocks are program-dependent, this approach necessitates automation. There has thus been growing interest in computing transfer functions automatically, most notably using techniques based on quantifier elimination. Although conceptually elegant, quantifier elimination inevitably induces a computational bottleneck, which limits the applicability of these methods to small blocks. This paper contributes a method for calculating transfer functions that finesses quantifier elimination altogether, and can thus be seen as a response to this problem. The practicality of the method is demonstrated by generating transfer functions for input and output states that are described by linear template constraints, which include intervals and octagons.
The question of how to construct a best abstract transformer has also been considered in the context of Markov decision processes (MDPs) for which the first abstract interpretation framework has recently been developed @cite_42 . The framework affords the calculation of both lower and upper bounds on reachability probabilities, which is novel. The work focuses on predicate abstraction @cite_73 , that have had some success with large MDPs, and seeks to answer the question of, for given set of predicates, what is the most precise abstract program that still is a correct abstraction. More generally, the work illustrates that the question of how to compute the best abstract transformer is pertinent even in a probabilistic setting.
@cite_42 @cite_73
2098245493 2169677553 1556387789 2207251955
This paper investigates relative precision and optimality of analyses for concurrent probabilistic systems. Aiming at the problem at the heart of probabilistic model checking – computing the probability of reaching a particular set of states – we leverage the theory of abstract interpretation. With a focus on predicate abstraction, we develop the first abstract-interpretation framework for Markov decision processes which admits to compute both lower and upper bounds on reachability probabilities. Further, we describe how to compute and approximate such abstractions using abstraction refinement and give experimental results. In this paper we present a novel abstraction technique for Markov decision processes (MDPs), which are widely used for modelling systems that exhibit both probabilistic and nondeterministic behaviour. In the field of model checking, abstraction has proved an extremely successful tool to combat the state-space explosion problem. In the probabilistic setting, however, little practical progress has been made in this area. We propose an abstraction method for MDPs based on stochastic two-player games. The key idea behind this approach is to maintain a separation between nondeterminism present in the original MDP and nondeterminism introduced through abstraction, each type being represented by a different player in the game. Crucially, this allows us to obtain distinct lower and upper bounds for both the best and worst-case performance (minimum or maximum probabilities) of the MDP. We have implemented our techniques and illustrate their practical utility by applying them to a quantitative analysis of the Zeroconf dynamic network configuration protocol. We present a general framework for applying machine-learning algorithms to the verification of Markov decision processes (MDPs). The primary goal of these techniques is to improve performance by avoiding an exhaustive exploration of the state space. Our framework focuses on probabilistic reachability, which is a core property for verification, and is illustrated through two distinct instantiations. The first assumes that full knowledge of the MDP is available, and performs a heuristic-driven partial exploration of the model, yielding precise lower and upper bounds on the required probability. The second tackles the case where we may only sample the MDP, and yields probabilistic guarantees, again in terms of both the lower and upper bounds, which provides efficient stopping criteria for the approximation. The latter is the first extension of statistical model checking for unbounded properties in MDPs. In contrast with other related techniques, our approach is not restricted to time-bounded (finite-horizon) or discounted properties, nor does it assume any particular properties of the MDP. We also show how our methods extend to LTL objectives. We present experimental results showing the performance of our framework on several examples. Probabilistic abstract argumentation combines Dung’s abstract argumentation framework with probability theory in order to model uncertainty in argumentation. In this setting, we address the fundamental problem of computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension according to a given semantics. We focus on the most popular semantics (i.e., admissible, stable, complete, grounded, preferred, ideal-set, ideal, stage, and semistable) and show the following dichotomy result: computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension is either FP or FP#P-complete depending on the semantics adopted. Our polynomial-time results are particularly interesting, as they hold for some semantics for which no polynomial-time technique was known so far.