Abstract
We present an approach for modeling adverse conditions by graph transformation systems. To this end, we introduce joint graph transformation systems which involve a system, an interfering environment, and an automaton modeling their interaction. For joint graph transformation systems, we present notions of correctness under adverse conditions. Some instances of correctness are expressible in LTL (linear temporal logic), or in CTL (computation tree logic), respectively. In these cases, verification of joint graph transformation systems is reduced to temporal model checking. To handle infinite state spaces, we incorporate the concept of well-structuredness. We discuss ideas for the verification of joint graph transformation systems using results based on well-structuredness.
Funding source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Award Identifier / Grant number: GRK 1765
Funding statement: This work is supported by the German Research Foundation through the Research Training Group DFG GRK 1765 SCARE: System Correctness under Adverse Conditions.
About the author
Okan Özkan, M. Sc. studied mathematics at the University of Oldenburg and at the University of Münster where he obtained his M. Sc. in mathematics in 2017. Since 2018, he is a PhD candidate in the field of theoretical computer science and member of the working group Formal Languages, headed by Prof. Dr. Annegret Habel, at the University of Oldenburg.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to Annegret Habel and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to this paper.
References
1. Parosh Aziz Abdulla, Kārlis Čerāns, Bengt Jonsson & Yih-Kuen Tsay (1996): General Decidability Theorems for Infinite-State Systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 313–321, doi:10.1109/LICS.1996.561359.10.1109/LICS.1996.561359Search in Google Scholar
2. Nathalie Bertrand, Giorgio Delzanno, Barbara König, Arnaud Sangnier & Jan Stückrath (2012): On the Decidability Status of Reachability and Coverability in Graph Transformation Systems. In: 23rd International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA’12), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, LIPIcs 15, pp. 101–116, doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.RTA.2012.101.Search in Google Scholar
3. Larbi Abdenebaoui, Hans-Jörg Kreowski & Sabine Kuske (2015): Graph-Transformational Swarms with Stationary Members. In: DoCEIS 2015: Technological Innovation for Cloud-Based Engineering Systems, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 450, pp. 137–144, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16766-4_15.10.1007/978-3-319-16766-4_15Search in Google Scholar
4. Christel Baier & Joost-Pieter Katoen (2008): Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press, doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxp025.10.1093/comjnl/bxp025Search in Google Scholar
5. Paolo Baldan, Andrea Corradini, Fabio Gadducci & Ugo Montanari (2010): From Petri Nets to Graph Transformation Systems. In: Electronic Communications of the EASST, 26, doi:10.14279/tuj.eceasst.26.368.Search in Google Scholar
6. Paolo Baldan, Andrea Corradini & Barbara König (2008): A framework for the verification of infinite-state graph transformation systems. Information and Computation 206, pp. 869–907, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2008.04.002.10.1016/j.ic.2008.04.002Search in Google Scholar
7. Edmund M. Clarke & E. Allen Emerson (1982): Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Logics of Programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 131, Springer, pp. 52–71, doi:10.1007/BFb0025774.10.1007/BFb0025774Search in Google Scholar
8. Andrea Corradini, Luciana Foss & Leila Ribeiro (2009): Graph Transformation with Dependencies for the Specification of Interactive Systems. In: Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques: 19th International Workshop, WADT 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5486, pp. 102–118, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03429-9_8.10.1007/978-3-642-03429-9_8Search in Google Scholar
9. Hartmut Ehrig, Karsten Ehrig, Ulrike Prange & Gabriele Taentzer (2006): Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science XIV, Springer, doi:10.1007/3-540-31188-2.10.1007/11841883Search in Google Scholar
10. E. Allen Emerson (1990): Temporal and Modal Logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, B, pp. 995–1072, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50021-4.10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50021-4Search in Google Scholar
11. Alain Finkel & Philippe Schnoebelen (2001): Well-structured transition systems everywhere! Theoretical Computer Science 256, pp. 63–92, doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00102-X.10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00102-XSearch in Google Scholar
12. Nils Erik Flick (2016): Proving correctness of graph programs relative to recursively nested conditions. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Oldenburg. Available at http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/2895/.Search in Google Scholar
13. Holger Giese, Maria Maximova, Lucas Sakizloglou & Sven Schneider (2019): Metric Temporal Graph Logic over Typed Attributed Graphs. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11424, pp. 282–298, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_16.10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_16Search in Google Scholar
14. Annegret Habel & Detlef Plump (2001): Computational Completeness of Programming Languages Based on Graph Transformation. In: Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2030, pp. 230–245, doi:10.1007/3-540-45315-6_15.10.1007/3-540-45315-6_15Search in Google Scholar
15. Annegret Habel & Karl-Heinz Pennemann (2009): Correctness of high-level transformation systems relative to nested conditions. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 19, Cambridge University Press, pp. 245–296, doi:10.1017/S0960129508007202.10.1017/S0960129508007202Search in Google Scholar
16. Annegret Habel, Karl-Heinz Pennemann & Arend Rensink (2006): Weakest Preconditions for High-Level Programs. In: Graph Transformations (ICGT 2006), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4178, pp. 445–460, doi:10.1007/11841883_31.10.1007/11841883_31Search in Google Scholar
17. Martin Hilscher & Maike Schwammberger (2016): An Abstract Model for Proving Safety of Autonomous Urban Traffic. In: Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9965, pp. 274–292, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46750-4_16.10.1007/978-3-319-46750-4_16Search in Google Scholar
18. Harmen Kastenberg & Arend Rensink (2006): Model Checking Dynamic States in GROOVE. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Model Checking Software (SPIN), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3925, pp. 299–305, doi:10.1007/11691617_19.10.1007/11691617_19Search in Google Scholar
19. Barbara König & Jan Stückrath (2017): Well-structured graph transformation systems. In: Information and Computation 252, pp. 71–94, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2016.03.005.10.1016/j.ic.2016.03.005Search in Google Scholar
20. E. V. Kouzmin, N. V. Shilov & V. A. Sokolov (2004): Model checking mu-calculus in well-structured transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, 2004 (TIME 2004), pp. 152–155, doi:10.1109/TIME.2004.1314433.10.1109/TIME.2004.1314433Search in Google Scholar
21. Michael Löwe (1993): Algebraic approach to single-pushout graph transformation. Theoretical Computer Science 109, pp. 181–224, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(93)90068-5.10.1016/0304-3975(93)90068-5Search in Google Scholar
22. Richard Mayr (2001): Decidability of model checking with the temporal logic EF. Theoretical Computer Science 256, pp. 31–62, doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00101-8.10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00101-8Search in Google Scholar
23. Okan Özkan (2020): Modeling Adverse Conditions in the Framework of Graph Transformation Systems. In: Graph Computation Models 2020 (previously part of STAF 2020), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 330, pp. 35–54, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.330.3.10.4204/EPTCS.330.3Search in Google Scholar
24. Okan Özkan & Nick Würdemann (2021): Resilience of Well-structured Graph Transformation Systems. Presented at Graph Computation Models 2021 and available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.00889.Search in Google Scholar
25. Christoph Peuser (2018): From Hyperedge Replacement Grammars to Decidable Hyperedge Replacement Games. In: Software Technologies: Applications and Foundations (STAF 2018), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11176, pp. 463–478, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04771-9_33.10.1007/978-3-030-04771-9_33Search in Google Scholar
26. Christopher M. Poskitt & Detlef Plump (2013): Verifying Total Correctness of Graph Programs. In: Electronic Communications of the EASST, 61, doi:10.14279/tuj.eceasst.61.827.Search in Google Scholar
27. Arend Rensink (2004): Representing First-Order Logic Using Graphs. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Graph Transformation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3256, Springer, pp. 319–335, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30203-2_23.10.1007/978-3-540-30203-2_23Search in Google Scholar
28. Dominik Steenken (2015): Verification of infinite-state graph transformation systems via abstraction. Ph. D. thesis, University of Paderborn. Available at https://katalog.ub.uni-paderborn.de/local/records/001791222.Search in Google Scholar
29. Wolfgang Thomas (1990): Automata on infinite objects. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B, pp. 133–191, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50009-3.10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50009-3Search in Google Scholar
30. Nils Worzyk, Hendrik Kahlen & Oliver Kramer (2019): Physical Adversarial Attacks by Projecting Perturbations. In: Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2019: Image Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11729, pp. 649–659, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30508-6_51.10.1007/978-3-030-30508-6_51Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
