Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two AGM-style characterizations of model repair

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work explores formal aspects of model repair, i.e., how to rationally modify Kripke models representing the behavior of a system in order to satisfy a desired property. We investigate the problem in the light of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson’s work on belief revision. We propose two AGM-style characterizations of model repair: one based on belief sets and the other based on structural changes. In the first characterization, we define a set of rationality postulates over formulas with a close correspondence to those in the classical belief revision theory. We show that the proposed set of postulates fully characterizes the expected rationality of modifications in the model repair problem. In the second characterization, we propose a new set of rationality postulates based on structural modifications on models. These postulates have a close correspondence to the classical approach of model repair, while preserving the same rationality of the first characterization. We provide two representation results and the connection between them.

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. Alchourron, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Alrajeh, D., Kramer, J., Russo, A., Uchitel, S.: Automated support for diagnosis and repair. Commun. ACM 58(2), 65–72 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2658986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Katsaros, P., Ramakrishnan, C.R., Smolka, S.A.: Model repair for probabilistic systems. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems: 17th International Conference, TACAS 2011, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2011, Saarbrücken, Germany, March 26?-April 3, 2011. Proceedings, pp. 326–340. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  4. Bonakdarpour, B., Hajisheykhi, R., Kulkarni, S.S.: Knowledge-based automated repair of authentication protocols. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014: Formal Methods: 19th International Symposium, Singapore, May 12–16, 2014. Proceedings, pp. 132–147. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buccafurri, F., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Leone, N.: Enhancing model checking in verification by AI techniques. Artif. Intell. 112(1-2), 57–104 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00039-9. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0004370299000399

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Burch, J., Clarke, E., McMillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic model checking: 10{̂20} states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98(2), 142–170 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-5401(92)90017-A. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089054019290017A

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrillo, M., Rosenblueth, D.A.: CTL update of Kripke models through protections. Artif. Intell. 211, 51–74 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.02.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370214000228

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Chatzieleftheriou, G., Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A., Katsaros, P.: Abstract model repair. In: Goodloe, A., Person, S. (eds.) NASA Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7226, pp. 341–355. Springer, Berlin (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28891-3_32

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logics of Programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0025774, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Berlin (1982)

  10. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 8(2), 244–263 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1145/5397.5399

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fermé, E. L., Hansson, S.O.: AGM 25 years - twenty-five years of research in belief change. J. Philosophical Logic 40(2), 295–331 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9171-9

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(79)90046-1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000079900461

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Flouris, G.: On belief change and ontology evolution. Ph.D. thesis, University of Crete (2006)

  14. Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O., Russo, A.: Belief revision in non-classical logics. The Review of Symbolic Logic 1(03), 267–304 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Guerra, P.T., Andrade, A., Wassermann, R.: Toward the revision of CTL models through Kripke modal transition systems. In: Iyoda, J., de Moura, L.M. (eds.) Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications. 16th Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods (SBMF 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8195, pp. 115–130. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guerra, P.T., Wassermann, R.: Revision of CTL models. In: Kuri-Morales, A., Simari, G. (eds.) Advances in Artificial Intelligence – IBERAMIA 2010, LNCS, vol. 6433, pp. 153–162. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Guerra, P.T., Wassermann, R.: Two AGM-style characterizations of model repair. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2018), pp. 645–646 (2018)

  18. Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer, Boston (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Jobstmann, B., Griesmayer, A., Bloem, R.: Program repair as a game. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV’05, pp. 226–238. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 183–203. Cambridge University Press (1992)

  21. Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27(3), 333–354 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(82)90125-6 . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397582901256

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Parikh, R.: Beliefs, belief revision and splitting languages. In: Proceedings of Itallc-96 (1996)

  23. Peppas, P.: Belief revision. In: Van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B.W. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 317–359. Elsevier (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-6526(07)03008-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS ’77, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1977). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.32

  25. Reder, A., Egyed, A.: Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models. In: 2012 Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 220–229 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2351676.2351707

  26. Ribeiro, M.M.: Belief Revision in Non-classical Logics. Springer Briefs in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Seshia, S.A.: Sciduction: combining induction, deduction, and structure for verification and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC ’12, pp. 356–365. ACM, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2228360.2228425

  28. Sousa, T.C., Wassermann, R.: Handling inconsistencies in CTL model-checking using belief revision Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods (2007)

  29. Wassermann, R.: On AGM for non-classical logics. J. Philos. Log. 40(2), 271–294 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9178-2

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, Y., Ding, Y.: CTL model update for system modifications. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 31(1), 113–155 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Herzig, A.: Logics for belief base updating. In: Dubois, D., Prade, H. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management, vol. Belief Cha, pp. 189–231. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. Springer, Berlin (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Guerra, P.T., Wassermann, R.: On the uncomputability of partial meet contraction for linear-time temporal logic. South American Journal of Logic (to appear)

  34. Hansson, S.O.: Belief contraction without recovery. Stud. Logica. 50(2), 251–260 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00370186

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Ceará, Campus Quixadá, Quixadá, Brazil

    Paulo T. Guerra

  2. Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Renata Wassermann

Authors
  1. Paulo T. Guerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renata Wassermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo T. Guerra.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The first author was funded by grant 2010/15392-3, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). This work was funded by the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) grant number 447178/2014-8.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 317 KB )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerra, P.T., Wassermann, R. Two AGM-style characterizations of model repair. Ann Math Artif Intell 87, 233–257 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09656-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09656-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation