Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Game-Based Approach for PCTL* Stochastic Model Checking with Evidence

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stochastic model checking is a recent extension and generalization of the classical model checking, which focuses on quantitatively checking the temporal property of a system model. PCTL* is one of the important quantitative property specification languages, which is strictly more expressive than either PCTL (probabilistic computation tree logic) or LTL (linear temporal logic) with probability bounds. At present, PCTL* stochastic model checking algorithm is very complicated, and cannot provide any relevant explanation of why a formula does or does not hold in a given model. For dealing with this problem, an intuitive and succinct approach for PCTL* stochastic model checking with evidence is put forward in this paper, which includes: presenting the game semantics for PCTL* in release-PNF (release-positive normal form), defining the PCTL* stochastic model checking game, using strategy solving in game to achieve the PCTL* stochastic model checking, and refining winning strategy as the evidence to certify stochastic model checking result. The soundness and the completeness of game-based PCTL* stochastic model checking are proved, and its complexity matches the known lower and upper bounds. The game-based PCTL* stochastic model checking algorithm is implemented in a visual prototype tool, and its feasibility is demonstrated by an illustrative example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clarke E M, Emerson E A. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In Proc. the Workshop on Logic of Programs, May 1981, pp.52-71.

  2. Queille J P, Sifakis J. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proc. the 5th Colloquium on International Symposium on Programming, April 1982, pp.337-351.

  3. Lin H M, ZhangWH. Model checking: Theories, techniques and applications. Acta Electronica Sinica, 2002, 30(12A): 1907–1912. (in Chinese)

  4. Baier C, Katoen J P. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, 2008.

  5. Clarke E M, Emerson E A, Sifakis J. Model checking: Algorithmic verification and debugging. Communications of the ACM, 2009, 52(11): 74–84.

  6. Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D. Stochastic model checking. In Proc. the 7th International Conference on Formal Methods for Performance Evaluation, May 28-June 2, 2007, pp.220-270.

  7. Ndukwu U,Mclver A. An expectation transformer approach to predicate abstraction and data independence for probabilistic programs. In Proc. the 8th Workshop on Quantitative Aspects of Programming Languages, Mar. 2010, pp.129-143.

  8. Baier C, Haverkort B R, Hermanns H, Katoen J P. Performance evaluation and model checking join forces. Communication of the ACM, 2010, 53(9): 74–85.

  9. Duflot M, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D, Peyronnet S, Picaronny C, Sproston J. Practical applications of probabilistic model checking to communication protocols. In Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems: A Survey of Applications, Gnesi S, Margaria T (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012, pp.133-150

  10. Calinescu R, Grunske L, Kwiatkowska M, Mirandola R, Tamburrelli G. Dynamic QoS management and optimisation in service-based systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2011, 37(3): 387–409.

  11. Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D. Probabilistic model checking for systems biology. In Symbolic Systems Biology, Iyengar M S (ed.), Jones and Bartlett, 2010, pp.31-59.

  12. Hansson H, Jonsson B. A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects of Computing, 1994, 6(5): 512–535.

  13. Pnueli A. The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. the 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Oct.31-Nov.2, 1977, pp.46-67.

  14. Aziz A, Sanwal K, Singhal V, Brayton R. Model-checking continuous time Markov chains. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2000, 1(1): 162–170.

  15. Baier C, Haverkort B, Hermanns H, Katoen J P. Modelchecking algorithms for continuous-time Markov chains. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2003, 29(6): 524–541.

  16. Liu Y, Miao H, Zeng H, Ma Y, Liu P. Nondeterministic probabilistic Petri net — A new method to studying qualitative and quantitative behaviors of system. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2013, 28(1): 203–216.

  17. Hintikka J. Logic, Language-Games and Information: Kantian Themes in the Philosophy of Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973.

  18. Petri C A. Introduction to general net theory. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 84, Brauer, W (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1980, 84: 1–19.

  19. Bollig B, Leucker M, Weber M. Local parallel model checking for the alternation-free μ-calculus. In Proc. the 9th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, April 2002, pp.128-147.

  20. Savitch W J. Deterministic simulation of non-deterministic turing machines. In Proc. the 1st ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1969, pp.247-248.

  21. Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D. PRISM 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In Proc. the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Jul. 2011, pp.585-591.

  22. Clarke E M, Jha S, Lu Y, Veith H. Tree-like counterexamples in model checking. In Proc. the 17th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Jul. 2002, pp.19-29.

  23. Chadha R, Viswanathan M. A counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework for Markov decision processes. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2010, 12(1): 1:1–1:49.

  24. Bonet P, Llado C M, Puijaner R, Knottenbelt W J. PIPE v2.5: A Petri net tool for performance modelling. In Proc. the 23rd Latin American Conference on Informatics (CLEI 2007), October 2007.

  25. Dingle N J, Knottenbelt W J, Suto T. PIPE2: A tool for the performance evaluation of generalised stochastic Petri nets. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 2009, 36(4): 34–39.

  26. Ong C H L. Verification of higher-order computation: A game-semantic approach. In Proc. the 17th European Symposium on Programming, Mar.29-Apr.6, 2008, pp.299-306.

  27. Abramsky S, Ghica D, Murawski A, Ong C H L. Applying game semantics to compositional software modelling and verification. In Proc. the 10th International Conference Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Mar.29-Apr.2, 2004, pp.421-435.

  28. Abramsky S, Jagadeesan R. Game semantics for access control. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2009, 249: 135–156.

  29. Fredriksson O, Ghica D R. Abstract machines for game semantics, revisited. In Proc. the 28th Annual IEEE/ACM Symposium Logic in Computer Science, Jun. 2013, pp.560-569.

  30. Stirling C. Proof systems for retracts in simply typed lambda calculus. In Proc. the 40th International Conference on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Jul. 2013, pp.398-409.

  31. Ghica D R. Applications of game semantics: From program analysis to hardware synthesis. In Proc. the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Aug. 2009, pp.17-26.

  32. Zhu X Y, Zhang W H, Li G Y, Lv Y, Lin H M. Report on advances in model checking. In Report on Advances in Computer Science and Technology (2011–2012), China Science and Technology Press, 2012. (in Chinese)

  33. Stirling C. Bisimulation, model checking and other games. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/cps/mathfit.pdf, Dec. 2015.

  34. Stirling C. Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Springer-Verlag New York, 2001.

  35. Lange M, Stirling C. Model checking games for branching time logics. Journal of Logic Computation, 2002, 12(4): 623–939.

  36. Shoham S, Grumberg O. Game-based framework for CTL counterexamples and 3-valued abstraction-refinement. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 2007, 9(1): 1:1–1:52.

  37. Fecher H, Huth M, Piterman N, Wagner D. PCTL model checking of Markov chains: Truth and falsity as winning strategies in games. Performance Evaluation, 2010, 67(9): 858–872.

  38. Tan L, Cleaveland R. Evidence-based model checking. In Proc. the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Jul. 2002, pp.455-470.

  39. Namjoshi K. Certifying model checkers. In Proc. the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Jul. 2001, pp.2-13.

  40. Peled D, Pnueli A, Zuck L. From falsification to verification. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2245, Hariharan R, Vinay V, Mukund M (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2001, pp.292-304.

  41. Peled D, Zuck L. From model checking to a temporal proof. In Proc. the 8th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, May 2001, pp.1-14.

  42. Han T T, Katoen J P, Damman B. Counterexample generation in probabilistic model checking. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009, 35(2): 241–257.

  43. Komuravelli A, P˘as˘areanu C S, Clarke E M. Assumeguarantee abstraction refinement for probabilistic systems. In Proc. the 24th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Jul. 2012, pp.310-326.

  44. Chatterjee K, Henzinger T, Jhala R, Majumdar R. Counter example-guided planning. In Proc. the 21st International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 2005, pp.104-111.

  45. Hermanns H,Wachter B, Zhang L Z. Probabilistic CEGAR. In Proc. the 20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Jul. 2008, pp.162-175.

  46. Aljazzar H, Leue S. Directed explicit state-space search in the generation of counterexamples for stochastic model checking. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2010, 36(1): 37–60.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210046, China

    Yang Liu & Xuan-Dong Li

  2. Department of Computer Science, School of Computing, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117417, Singapore

    Yang Liu

  3. College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China

    Yan Ma

Authors
  1. Yang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuan-Dong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Li, XD. & Ma, Y. A Game-Based Approach for PCTL* Stochastic Model Checking with Evidence. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 31, 198–216 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-016-1621-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-016-1621-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation