- 795 Downloads
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.
KeywordsTransition System Correctness Distance Simulation Relation Simulation Game Game Graph
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Černý, P., Henzinger, T.A., Radhakrishna, A.: Simulation distances. Technical Report IST-2010-0003, IST Austria (June 2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jurdzinski, M.: Mean-payoff parity games. In: LICS, pp. 178–187 (2005)Google Scholar
- 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
- 11.Ehrenfeucht, A., Mycielski, J.: Positional strategies for mean payoff games. International Journal of Game Theory, 163–178 (1979)Google Scholar
- 12.Fenton, N.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, Revised (Paperback). Course Technology (1998)Google Scholar
- 13.Gurevich, Y., Harrington, L.: Trees, automata, and games. In: STOC, pp. 60–65 (1982)Google Scholar
- 15.Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Rajamani, S.K.: Fair simulation. Information and Computation, 273–287 (1997)Google Scholar
- 16.Lincke, R., Lundberg, J., Löwe, W.: Comparing software metrics tools. In: ISSTA, pp. 131–142 (2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Milner, R.: An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In: IJCAI, pp. 481–489 (1971)Google Scholar