diff options
author | Camil Staps | 2018-04-17 21:35:36 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Camil Staps | 2018-04-17 21:36:56 +0200 |
commit | 5920d4e148b0b9ee38ee12f0d02ee14fa7cc5db4 (patch) | |
tree | 869c985d143cfb77620c71b58b5e00cc78ebeea4 /Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex | |
parent | Upper bound for minimal bad prefices (diff) |
Correct upper bound for bad prefixes
Diffstat (limited to 'Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex | 43 |
1 files changed, 31 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex b/Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex index 0f80f79..a2101ba 100644 --- a/Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex +++ b/Assignment1/bad-prefix.tex @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ \camil -\subsection{Minimal Bad Prefices} +\subsection{Minimal Bad Prefixes} %TODO: Given a formula of the form vw^\omega, can we find a n \in \mathbb{N} such that vw^n is a bad prefix? \emph{NB: this section is not particularly about PLTL. It is better added as 4.4.3.} @@ -23,8 +23,7 @@ Hence, $vw^j$ is a bad prefix. To find these $i,j$ for a given counterexample $vw^\omega$, one can simply \enquote{run} $TS \otimes \mathcal A$ with $vw^\omega$ and record the state of the automaton after every iteration of $w$. Once a state reoccurs, $j$ is found. This algorithm, more formally described in \cref{alg:bad-prefix}, is obviously guaranteed to find the smallest $i,j$ for which $vw^i$ and $vw^j$ lead to the same state. -However, it is not guaranteed to find a minimal bad prefix. -% TODO: counterexample +However, it is not guaranteed to find a minimal bad prefix (for instance, when a prefix of $v$ already is a minimal bad prefix). \begin{algorithm}[H] % NOTE: ugly hardcoded spacing to mimic ugly algorithm layout by Baier-Katoen @@ -53,21 +52,41 @@ However, it is not guaranteed to find a minimal bad prefix. \end{algorithm} We can now prove an upper bound on the $j$ for which $vw^j$ is a bad prefix. -This upper bound depends on the size of the NBA $\mathcal A$ that we construct for $\lnot P$. -In general, $|\mathcal A| \le 2^{|P|}\cdot|P|$ as seen in Theorem 5.41. -However, in the case of safety properties, the size of $\mathcal A$ can be shown to be smaller~\citep{Latvala2002,Latvala2003}: - $\mathcal A$ is bound by $2^{|\textit{tf}(P)|}$, where $\textit{tf}(\phi)$ are the temporal subformulas of $\phi$: -This leads to an upper bound for the bad prefix returned by \cref{alg:bad-prefix}: -\begin{theorem}[An Upper Bound for the Bad Prefix of a Counterexample] - If $vw^\omega$ is a counterexample for safety property $P$ in finite transition system $TS$, there exists a $j \le |TS|\cdot2^{|\textit{tf}(P)|}$ for which $vw^j$ is a bad prefix. +\begin{theorem}[An Upper Bound for the Bad Prefix of Counterexamples] + \label{thm:bad-prefix:upper-bound} + If $vw^\omega$ is a counterexample for safety property $P$ in finite transition system $TS$, there exists a $j \le |TS|\cdot2^{|\lnot P|}\cdot|\lnot P|$ for which $vw^j$ is a bad prefix. \begin{proof} After $j$ iterations of the loop of \cref{alg:bad-prefix}, $S$ contains $j+1$ elements. But since $S$ is a subset of the states of $TS \otimes\mathcal A$, it can contain at most $|TS \otimes\mathcal A|$ elements. By the pigeonhole principle, a valid $j$ will be found in iteration $|TS\otimes\mathcal A|$ at the latest. - Combining this with the fact that $|\mathcal A| \le 2^{|\textit{tf}(P)|}$~\citep{Latvala2002,Latvala2003}, - we know that $j \le |TS| \cdot 2^{|\textit{tf}(P)|}$. + Combining this with the fact that $|\mathcal A| \le 2^{|\lnot P|}\cdot|\lnot P|$ (see Theorem 5.41), + we know that $j \le |TS| \cdot 2^{|\lnot P|}\cdot|\lnot P|$. \end{proof} \end{theorem} + +\begin{remark}[Finding Bad Prefixes of Counterexamples] + \Cref{alg:bad-prefix} would be rather inefficient in practice due to several factors: + the construction of NBA $\mathcal A$, + the synchronous product $TS \otimes \mathcal A$ and + the fact that we only check the state after full iterations of $w$. + Instead, we can also take a finite automaton $\mathcal A$ recognizing the \emph{informative prefixes} of $\lnot P$.% + \footnote{% + The \emph{informative prefixes} can informally be described as prefixes which \enquote{give all information} about why a property is not satisfied. + In most natural cases, the informative prefixes are exactly the bad prefixes. + A precise definition is given by \citet{Kupferman2001} but is not required here.} + This automaton $\mathcal A$ can be constructed with at most $2^{|\textit{rcl}(P)|}$ states~\citep{Latvala2003},% + \footnote{% + Here, $\textit{rcl}(\phi)$ is the restricted closure of $\phi$. + It contains all subformulas of $\phi$ with a temporal operator at their root, $\psi$ if it contains $\Xop\psi$, or $\phi$ itself if no other rule applies.} + for which an implementation exists.% + \footnote{\url{http://tcs.legacy.ics.tkk.fi/users/tlatvala/scheck/}} + To find a bad prefix, we now only need to run $\mathcal A$ with $vw^\omega$ until an accepting state is reached. + + Since all bad prefixes are recognized by $\mathcal A$, this method in contrast to \cref{alg:bad-prefix} finds a minimal bad prefix. + However, it is not guaranteed to be of the form $vw^j$. + Combining the two results, the size of the minimal bad prefix in \enquote{natural} cases where all bad prefixes are informative is at most $|v|+|w|\cdot|TS|\cdot2^{|\lnot P|}\cdot|\lnot P|$. + In practice, the bad prefix will usually be much shorter. +\end{remark} \cbend |