International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis

Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis pp 394-410 | Cite as

Cooperative Reactive Synthesis

  • Roderick Bloem
  • Rüdiger Ehlers
  • Robert Könighofer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9364)

Abstract

A modern approach to engineering correct-by-construction systems is to synthesize them automatically from formal specifications. Oftentimes, a system can only satisfy its guarantees if certain environment assumptions hold, which motivates their inclusion in the system specification. Experience with modern synthesis approaches shows that synthesized systems tend to satisfy their specifications by actively working towards the violation of the assumptions rather than satisfying assumptions and guarantees together. Such uncooperative behavior is undesirable because it violates the aim of synthesis: the system should try to satisfy its guarantees and use the assumptions only when needed. Also, the assumptions often describe the valid behavior of other components in a bigger system, which should not be obstructed unnecessarily.

In this paper, we present a hierarchy of cooperation levels between system and environment. Each level describes how well the system enforces both the assumptions and guarantees. We show how to synthesize systems that achieve the highest possible cooperation level for a given specification in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). The synthesized systems can also exploit cooperative environment behavior during operation to reach a higher cooperation level that is not enforceable by the system initially. The worst-case time complexity of our synthesis procedure is doubly-exponential, which matches the complexity of standard LTL synthesis.

References

  1. 1.
    Almagor, S., Boker, U., Kupferman, O.: Formalizing and reasoning about quality. In: Fomin, F.V., Freivalds, R., Kwiatkowska, M., Peleg, D. (eds.) ICALP 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7966, pp. 15–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berwanger, D.: Admissibility in infinite games. In: Thomas, W., Weil, P. (eds.) STACS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4393, pp. 188–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloem, R., Chatterjee, K., Greimel, K., Henzinger, T.A., Hofferek, G., Jobstmann, B., Könighofer, B., Könighofer, R.: Synthesizing robust systems. Acta Inf. 51(3–4), 193–220 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloem, R., Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B.: Better quality in synthesis through quantitative objectives. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloem, R., Ehlers, R., Jacobs, S., Könighofer, R.: How to handle assumptions in synthesis. In: SYNT, pp. 34–50 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloem, R., Ehlers, R., Könighofer, R.: Cooperative reactive synthesis. CoRR, abs/1507.02531 (2015) Accessed on http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02531
  8. 8.
    Bloem, R., Jobstmann, B., Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y.: Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 78(3), 911–938 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Droste, M., Quaas, K.: A kleene-schützenberger theorem for weighted timed automata. In: Amadio, R.M. (ed.) FOSSACS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4962, pp. 142–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brenguier, R., Raskin, J.-F., Sassolas, M.: The complexity of admissibility in omega-regular games. In: CSL-LICS, p. 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Filiot, E., Raskin, J.-F.: Doomsday equilibria for omega-regular games. In: McMillan, K.L., Rival, X. (eds.) VMCAI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8318, pp. 78–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A.: Assume-guarantee synthesis. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 261–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Piterman, N.: Strategy logic. Inf. Comput. 208(6), 677–693 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ehlers, R., Finkbeiner, B.: Monitoring realizability. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 427–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehlers, R., Könighofer, R., Bloem, R.: Synthesizing cooperative reactive mission plans. In: IROS, IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehlers, R., Topcu, U.: Resilience to intermittent assumption violations in reactive synthesis. In: HSCC, pp. 203–212 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faella, M.: Admissible strategies in infinite games over graphs. In: Královič, R., Niwiński, D. (eds.) MFCS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5734, pp. 307–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisman, D., Kupferman, O., Lustig, Y.: Rational synthesis. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: POPL (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick Bloem
    • 1
  • Rüdiger Ehlers
    • 2
  • Robert Könighofer
    • 1
  1. 1.IAIK, Graz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  2. 2.University of Bremen and DFKI GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations