Suguman Bansal
Abstract
Existing solution approaches for problems in formal quantitative analysis suffer from two challenges that adversely impact their theoretical understanding and large-scale applicability. These are the lack of generalizability, and separation-of-techniques. Lack of generalizability refers to the issue that solution approaches are often specialized to the underlying cost model that evaluates the quantitative property. Different cost models deploy such disparate algorithms that there is no transfer of knowledge from one cost model to another. Separation-of-techniques refers to the inherent dichotomy in solving problems in quantitative analysis. Most algorithms comprise of two phases: A structural phase, which reasons about the structure of the quantitative system(s) using techniques from automata or graphs; and a numerical phase, which reasons about the quantitative dimension/cost model using numerical methods. These techniques are incompatible with one another, forcing the phases to be performed sequentially, thereby impacting scalability.
The article presents a novel framework that addresses the aforementioned challenges. The introduced framework, called comparator automata or comparators in short, builds on automata-theoretic foundations to generalize across a variety of cost models. The crux of comparators is that they enable automata-based methods in the numerical phase, hence eradicating the dependence on numerical methods. In doing so, comparators are able to integrate the structural and numerical phases. On the theoretical front, we demonstrate that comparator-based solutions have the advantage of generalizable results, and yield complexity-theoretic improvements over a range of problems in quantitative analysis. On the practical front, we demonstrate through empirical analysis that comparator-based solutions render more efficient, scalable, and robust performance, and demonstrate broader applicability than traditional methods for quantitative reasoning.
- Rabit-Reduce. http://www.languageinclusion.org/. (????).Google Scholar
- Dilip Abreu. 1988. On the theory of infinitely repeated games with discounting. Econometrica (1988), 383--396.Google Scholar
- S. Almagor, U. Boker, and O. Kupferman. 2011. Whatś decidable about weighted automata? In Proc. of ATVA. Springer, 482--491.Google Scholar
- B. Alpern and F. B. Schneider. 1987. Recognizing safety and liveness. Distributed computing 2, 3 (1987), 117--126.Google Scholar
- Rajeev Alur, Suguman Bansal, Osbert Bastani, and Kishor Jothimurugan. 2022. A framework for transforming specifications in reinforcement learning. In Principles of Systems Design: Essays Dedicated to Thomas A. Henzinger on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Springer, 604--624.Google Scholar
- Garrett Andersen and Vincent Conitzer. 2013. Fast Equilibrium Computation for Infinitely Repeated Games. In Proc. of AAAI. 53--59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christel Baier, Joost-Pieter Katoen, and others. 2008. Principles of model checking. MIT press Cambridge.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suguman Bansal. Doctoral Dissertation, Rice University, June 2020. Automata-based Quantitative Analysis.Google Scholar
- S. Bansal. Master's thesis, Rice University, 2016. Algorithmic analysis of Regular Repeated Games.Google Scholar
- Suguman Bansal, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2021. On satisficing in quantitative games. In Proc. of TACAS.Google Scholar
- Suguman Bansal, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2018a. Automata vs Linear-Programming Discounted-Sum Inclusion. In Proc. of CAV.Google Scholar
- Suguman Bansal, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2018b. Comparator automata in quantitative verification. In Proc. of FOSSACS.Google Scholar
- Suguman Bansal, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Moshe Y Vardi. 2022a. Comparator automata in quantitative verification. Logical Methods in Computer Science 18 (2022).Google Scholar
- Suguman Bansal, Lydia Kavraki, Moshe Y Vardi, and Andrew Wells. 2022b. Synthesis from Satisficing and Temporal Goals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 9679--9686.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suguman Bansal, Yong Li, Lucas Tabajara, and Moshe Vardi. 2020. Hybrid compositional reasoning for reactive synthesis from finite-horizon specifications. In Proc. of AAAI.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suguman Bansal and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2019. Safety and Co-safety Comparator Automata for Discounted-Sum Inclusion. In Proc. of CAV.Google Scholar
- Udi Boker and Guy Hefetz. 2021. Discounted-sum automata with multiple discount factors. In 29th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2021). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.Google Scholar
- U. Boker and T. A. Henzinger. 2014. Exact and Approximate Determinization of Discounted-Sum Automata. LMCS 10, 1 (2014).Google Scholar
- U. Boker, T. A. Henzinger, and J. Otop. 2015. The Target Discounted-Sum Problem. In Proc. of LICS. 750--761.Google Scholar
- Patricia Bouyer, Romain Brenguier, and Nicolas Markey. 2010. Nash equilibria for reachability objectives in multi-player timed games. In International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Springer, 192--206.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patricia Bouyer, Romain Brenguier, Nicolas Markey, and Michael Ummels. 2011. Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Games with Büchi Objectives.. In Proc. of FSTTCS. 375--386.Google Scholar
- R. E. Bryant. 1986. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. Computers, IEEE Transactions on 100, 8 (1986), 677--691.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jerry R Burch, Edmund M Clarke, Kenneth L McMillan, David L Dill, and Lain-Jinn Hwang. 1992. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Information and computation 98, 2 (1992), 142--170.Google Scholar
- Krishnendu Chatterjee. 2008. Linear time algorithm for weak parity games. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.1391 (2008).Google Scholar
- K. Chatterjee, L. Doyen, and T. A. Henzinger. 2009. Expressiveness and closure properties for quantitative languages. In Proc. of LICS. IEEE, 199--208.Google Scholar
- K. Chatterjee, L. Doyen, and T. A. Henzinger. 2010. Quantitative languages. Transactions on Computational Logic 11, 4 (2010), 23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krishnendu Chatterjee, Thomas A Henzinger, Jan Otop, and Yaron Velner. 2017. Quantitative fair simulation games. Information and Computation 254 (2017), 143--166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alonzo Church. 1963. Application of recursive arithmetic to the problem of circuit synthesis. Journal of Symbolic Logic 28, 4 (1963).Google Scholar
- 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 (TOPLAS) 8, 2 (1986), 244--263.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rina S Cohen and Arie Y Gold. 1977. Theory of ω-languagesI: Characterizations of ω-context-free languages. JCSS 15, 2 (1977).Google Scholar
- K. He, M. Lahijanian, L.E. Kavraki, and M.Y. Vardi. 2017. Reactive synthesis for finite tasks under resource constraints. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 5326--5332.Google Scholar
- O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. 1999. Model checking of safety properties. In Proc. of CAV. Springer, 172--183.Google Scholar
- M. Lahijanian, S. Almagor, D. Fried, L.E. Kavraki, and M.Y. Vardi. 2015. This Time the Robot Settles for a Cost: A Quantitative Approach to Temporal Logic Planning with Partial Satisfaction.. In AAAI. 3664--3671.Google Scholar
- Philipp J Meyer, Salomon Sickert, and Michael Luttenberger. 2018. Strix: Explicit reactive synthesis strikes back!. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 578--586.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Koko Muroya, Takahiro Sanada, and Natsuki Urabe. 2021. Preorder-Constrained Simulation for Nondeterministic Automata (Early Ideas). In 9th Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science (CALCO 2021). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.Google Scholar
- Kedar S Namjoshi and Nisarg Patel. 2022. Synthesis of Compact Strategies for Coordination Programs. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, 46--63.Google Scholar
- John F. Nash. 1950. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36, 1 (1950), 48--49. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M.J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. 1994. A course in game theory. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Amir Pnueli. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. of FOCS. IEEE, 46--57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amir Pnueli and Roni Rosner. 1989. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In POPL. 179--190.Google Scholar
- M.L. Puterman. 1990. Markov decision processes. Handbooks in operations research and management science 2 (1990), 331--434.Google Scholar
- Senthil Rajasekaran, Suguman Bansal, and Moshe Y Vardi. 2023. Multi-Agent Systems with Quantitative Satisficing Goals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00953 (2023).Google Scholar
- S. Safra. 1988. On the complexity of ω-automata. In Proc. of FOCS. IEEE, 319--327.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Schewe and B. Finkbeiner. 2007. Bounded synthesis. Proc. of ATVA (2007), 474--488.Google Scholar
- Yoav Shoham and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2009. Multiagent Systems - Algorithmic, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Herbert A Simon. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological review 63, 2 (1956), 129.Google Scholar
- R.S. Sutton and A.G. Barto. 1998. Introduction to reinforcement learning. Vol. 135. MIT press Cambridge.Google Scholar
- W. Thomas, T. Wilke, and others. 2002. Automata, logics, and infinite games: A guide to current research. Vol. 2500. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Michael Ummels, Nicolas Markey, Romain Brenguier, and Patricia Bouyer. 2015. Pure Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Deterministic Games. Logical Methods in Computer Science 11 (2015).Google Scholar
- M. Y Vardi. 2007. The Büchi complementation saga. In Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Springer, 12--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Wooldridge. 2009. An introduction to multiagent systems. John wiley & sons.Google Scholar
- S. Zhu, L. M. Tabajara, J. Li, G. Pu, and M. Y Vardi. 2017. A Symbolic Approach to Safety LTL Synthesis. In Haifa Verification Conference. Springer, 147--162.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Using incomplete quantitative knowledge in qualitative reasoning
AAAI'88: Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI National Conference on Artificial IntelligenceIncomplete knowledge of the structure of mechanisms is an important fact of life in reasoning, commonsense or expert, about the physical world. Qualitative simulation captures an important kind of incomplete, ordinal, knowledge, and predicts the set of ...
Abductive case-based reasoning: Research Articles
This article introduces abductive case-based reasoning (CBR) and attempts to show that abductive CBR and deductive CBR can be integrated in clinical process and problem solving. Then it provides a unified formalization for integration of abduction, ...
Comments