Weak Bisimulation is Sound and Complete for PCTL*

  • Josée Desharnais
  • Vineet Gupta
  • Radha Jagadeesan
  • Prakash Panangaden
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2421)

Abstract

We investigate weak bisimulation of probabilistic systems in the presence of nondeterminism, i.e. labelled concurrent Markov chains (LCMC) with silent transitions. We build on the work of Philippou, Lee and Sokolsky [17] for finite state LCMCs. Their definition of weak bisimulation destroys the additivity property of the probability distributions, yielding instead capacities. The mathematics behind capacities naturally captures the intuition that when we deal with nondeterminism we must work with estimates on the possible probabilities.

Our analysis leads to three new developments: - We identify an axiomatization of “image finiteness” for countable state systems and present a new definition of weak bisimulation for these LCMCs. We prove that our definition coincides with that of Philippou, Lee and Sokolsky for finite state systems. - We show that bisimilar states have matching computations. The notion of matching involves linear combinations of transitions. This idea is closely related to the use of randomized schedulers. - We study a minor variant of the probabilistic logic pCTL✱— the variation arises from an extra path formula to address action labels. We show that bisimulation is sound and complete for this variant of pCTL✱.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Aziz, V. Singhal, F. Balarin, R. K. Brayton, and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. It usually works:the temporal logic of stochastic systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, number 939 in Lecture Notes In Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Baier and H. Hermanns. Weak bisimulation for fully probabilistic processes. In Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, number 1254 in Lecture Notes In Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Bandini and R. Segala. Axiomatizations for probabilistic bisimulation. In Proceedings of the 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, number 2076 in Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pages 370–381. Springer-Verlag, July 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Blute, J. Desharnais, A. Edalat, and P. Panangaden. Bisimulation for labelled Markov processes. In Proceedings of the Twelfth IEEE Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, Warsaw, Poland., 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Choquet. Theory of capacities. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 5:131–295, 1953.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. de Alfaro. Formal Verification of Probabilistic Systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1997. Technical Report STAN-CS-TR-98-1601.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Dellacherie. Capacités et Processus Stochastiques. Springer-Verlag, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Desharnais, A. Edalat, and P. Panangaden. A logical characterization of bisimulation for labeled Markov processes. In proceedings of the 13th IEEE Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, Indianapolis, pages 478–489. IEEE Press, June 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Desharnais, A. Edalat, and P. Panangaden. Bisimulation for labeled Markov processes. Information and Computation, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Desharnais, V. Gupta, R. Jagadeesan, and P. Panangaden. Metrics for labeled Markov processes. In Jos Baeten and Sjouke Mauw, editors, Proceedings of CONCUR99, number 1664 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Desharnais, V. Gupta, R. Jagadeesan, and P. Panangaden. The metric analogue of weak bisimulation for labelled Markov processes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual IEEE Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, July 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Desharnais and P. Panangaden. Continuous stochastic logic characterizes bisimulation for continuous-time markov processes. Available from http://www-acaps.cs.mcgill.ca/~prakash/pubs.html, 2001.
  13. 13.
    Hans A. Hansson. Time and Probability in Formal Design of Distributed Systems, volume 1 of Real-time Safety-critical Systems. Elseiver, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. G. Kemeny and J. L. Snell. Finite Markov Chains. Van Nostrand, 1960.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. G. Larsen and A. Skou. Bisimulation through probablistic testing. Information and Computation, 94:1–28, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. A. Meyer. Probability and Potentials. Blaisdell, 1966.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Philippou, I. Lee, and O. Sokolsky. Weal bisimulation for probabilistic processes. In C. Palamidessi, editor, Proceedings of CONCUR 2000, number 1877 in Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pages 334–349. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Schmeidler. Subjective probability without additivity. Technical report, Foerder Institute of Economic Research, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Segala. Modeling and Verification of Randomized Distributed Real-Time Systems. PhD thesis, MIT, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1995. Also appears as technical report MIT/LCS/TR-676.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Segala and N. Lynch. Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processes. In B. Jonsson and J. Parrow, editors, Proceedings of CONCUR94, number 836 in Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pages 481–496. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josée Desharnais
    • 1
  • Vineet Gupta
    • 2
  • Radha Jagadeesan
    • 3
  • Prakash Panangaden
    • 4
  1. 1.Département d’InformatiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Stratify Inc.Mountain ViewUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer ScienceLoyola University-Lake Shore CampusChicagoUSA
  4. 4.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations