Quantitative Analysis of Probabilistic Lossy Channel Systems

  • Alexander Rabinovich
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2719)


Many protocols are designed to operate correctly even in the case where the underlying communication medium is faulty. To capture the behaviour of such protocols, lossy channel systems (LCS) [3] have been proposed.In an LCS the communication channels are modelled as FIFO buffers which are unbounded, but also unreliable in the sense that they can nondeterministically lose messages.

Recently, several attempts [[5], [1]

Here we consider a more challenging problem, namely to calculate the probability by which a certain property is satisfied. Our main result is an algorithm for the following Quantitative model checking problem: Instance: A PLCS, its state s, a finite state ω-automaton \( \mathcal{A} \), and a rational θ > 0.

Task: Find a rational r such that the probability of the set of computations that start at s and are accepted by \( \mathcal{A} \) is between r and r + θ.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P.A. Abdulla, C. Baier, P. Iyer, and B. Jonsson. Reasoning about probabilistic lossy channel systems. In Proc. CONCUR 2000, volume 1877 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.A. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Undecidable verification problems for programs with unreliable channels. Information and Computation, 130(1):71–90, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.A. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Verifying programs with unreliable channels. Information and Computation, 127(2):91–101, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.A. Abdulla and A. Rabinovich. Verification of probabilistic systems with faulty communication, 2003. In FOSSACS’03, volume 2620 of LNCS, pages 39–53. Springer Verlag, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Baier and B. Engelen. Establishing qualitative properties for probabilistic lossy channel systems. In ARTS’99, volume 1601 of LNCS, pages 34–52. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Bertrand and Ph. Schnoebelen. Model checking lossy channels systems is probably decidable. In FOSSACS’03, volume 2620 of LNCS, pages 120–135 Springer Verlag, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the ACM, 2(5):323–342, 1983.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gérard Cécé, Alain Finkel, and S. Purushothaman Iyer. Unreliable channels are easier to verify than perfect channels. Information and Computation, 124(1):20–31, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Finkel and Ph. Schnoebelen. Well structured transition systems everywhere!. Theoretical Computer Science, 256(1–2):63–92, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Iyer and M. Narasimha. Probabilistic Lossy Channel Systems. In Proc of TAPSOFT’ 97 LNCS 1214, 667–681 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Karlin. A First Course in Stochastic Processes. Academic Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Kemeny, J. Snell, and A. Knapp. Denumerable Markov Chains. D Van Nostad Co., 1966.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. R. Norris. Markov Chains.Cam bridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ph. Schnoebelen. Verifying lossy channel systems has nonprimitive recursive complexity. Information Processing Letters, 83(5):251–261, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ph. Schnoebelen. Personal communication, Jan. 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Rabinovich
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations