Simulation Distances

  • Pavol Černý
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
  • Arjun Radhakrishna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6269)


Boolean notions of correctness are formalized by preorders on systems. Quantitative measures of correctness can be formalized by real-valued distance functions between systems, where the distance between implementation and specification provides a measure of “fit” or “desirability.” We extend the simulation preorder to the quantitative setting, by making each player of a simulation game pay a certain price for her choices. We use the resulting games with quantitative objectives to define three different simulation distances. The correctness distance measures how much the specification must be changed in order to be satisfied by the implementation. The coverage distance measures how much the implementation restricts the degrees of freedom offered by the specification. The robustness distance measures how much a system can deviate from the implementation description without violating the specification. We consider these distances for safety as well as liveness specifications. The distances can be computed in polynomial time for safety specifications, and for liveness specifications given by weak fairness constraints. We show that the distance functions satisfy the triangle inequality, that the distance between two systems does not increase under parallel composition with a third system, and that the distance between two systems can be bounded from above and below by distances between abstractions of the two systems. These properties suggest that our simulation distances provide an appropriate basis for a quantitative theory of discrete systems. We also demonstrate how the robustness distance can be used to measure how many transmission errors are tolerated by error correcting codes.


Transition System Correctness Distance Simulation Relation Simulation Game Game Graph 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Alternating refinement relations. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caspi, P., Benveniste, A.: Toward an approximation theory for computerised control. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Sifakis, J. (eds.) EMSOFT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2491, pp. 294–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Černý, P., Henzinger, T.A., Radhakrishna, A.: Simulation distances. Technical Report IST-2010-0003, IST Austria (June 2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.: Quantitative languages. In: Kaminski, M., Martini, S. (eds.) CSL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5213, pp. 385–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jurdzinski, M.: Mean-payoff parity games. In: LICS, pp. 178–187 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Alfaro, L., Faella, M., Stoelinga, M.: Linear and branching system metrics. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(2), 258–273 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T., Majumdar, R.: Discounting the future in systems theory. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Lenstra, J.K., Parrow, J., Woeginger, G.J. (eds.) ICALP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2719, pp. 1022–1037. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Alfaro, L., Majumdar, R., Raman, V., Stoelinga, M.: Game refinement relations and metrics. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desharnais, J., Gupta, V., Jagadeesan, R., Panangaden, P.: Metrics for labelled Markov processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 318(3), 323–354 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Droste, M., Gastin, P.: Weighted automata and weighted logics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 380(1-2), 69–86 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Mycielski, J.: Positional strategies for mean payoff games. International Journal of Game Theory, 163–178 (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fenton, N.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, Revised (Paperback). Course Technology (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gurevich, Y., Harrington, L.: Trees, automata, and games. In: STOC, pp. 60–65 (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamming, R.W.: Error detecting and error correcting codes. Bell System Tech. J. 29, 147–160 (1950)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Rajamani, S.K.: Fair simulation. Information and Computation, 273–287 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lincke, R., Lundberg, J., Löwe, W.: Comparing software metrics tools. In: ISSTA, pp. 131–142 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.: An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In: IJCAI, pp. 481–489 (1971)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Breugel, F.: An introduction to metric semantics: operational and denotational models for programming and specification languages. Theor. Comput. Sci. 258(1-2), 1–98 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Breugel, F., Worrell, J.: Approximating and computing behavioural distances in probabilistic transition systems. Theo. Comp. Sci. 360(1-3), 373–385 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zwick, U., Paterson, M.: The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 158(1&2), 343–359 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavol Černý
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
    • 1
  • Arjun Radhakrishna
    • 1
  1. 1.ISTAustria

Personalised recommendations