Advertisement

Automatic Compositional Synthesis of Distributed Systems

  • Werner Damm
  • Bernd Finkbeiner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8442)

Abstract

Given the recent advances in synthesizing finite-state controllers from temporal logic specifications, the natural next goal is to synthesize more complex systems that consist of multiple distributed processes. The synthesis of distributed systems is, however, a hard and, in many cases, undecidable problem. In this paper, we investigate the synthesis problem for specifications that admit dominant strategies, i.e., strategies that perform at least as well as the best alternative strategy, although they do not necessarily win the game. We show that for such specifications, distributed systems can be synthesized compositionally, considering one process at a time. The compositional approach has dramatically better complexity and is uniformly applicable to all system architectures

Keywords

Dominant Strategy Safety Property Winning Strategy Liveness Property Tree Automaton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloem, R.P., Galler, S., Jobstmann, B., Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Weiglhofer, M.: Automatic hardware synthesis from specifications: A case study. In: Proc. DATE, pp. 1188–1193 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloem, R.P., Gamauf, H.J., Hofferek, G., Könighofer, B., Könighofer, R.: Synthesizing robust systems with RATSY. In: Open Publishing Association (ed.) SYNT 2012, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 84, pp. 47–53 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohy, A., Bruyère, V., Filiot, E., Jin, N., Raskin, J.-F.: Acacia+, a tool for LTL synthesis. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 652–657. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Church, A.: Logic, arithmetic and automata. In: Proc. 1962 Intl. Congr. Math., Upsala, pp. 23–25 (1963)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damm, W., Finkbeiner, B.: Does it pay to extend the perimeter of a world model? In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 12–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehlers, R.: Unbeast: Symbolic bounded synthesis. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) TACAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6605, pp. 272–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Semi-automatic distributed synthesis. In: Peled, D.A., Tsay, Y.-K. (eds.) ATVA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3707, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Bounded synthesis. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15(5-6), 519–539 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T. (eds.): Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games. LNCS, vol. 2500. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henriksen, J.G., Jensen, Jørgensen, M., Klarlund, N., Paige, B., Rauhe, T., Sandholm, A.: Mona: Monadic second-order logic in practice. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 89–110. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jurdziński, M.: Small progress measures for solving parity games. In: Reichel, H., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1770, pp. 290–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Synthesis with incomplete information. In: Proc. of ICTL (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Safraless decision procedures. In: Proceedings of 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2005), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 23–25, pp. 531–540 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In: Proc. FOCS 1990, pp. 746–757 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.): COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Damm
    • 1
  • Bernd Finkbeiner
    • 2
  1. 1.Carl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Universität des SaarlandesGermany

Personalised recommendations