Establishing Qualitative Properties for Probabilistic Lossy Channel Systems

An Algorithmic Approach
  • Christel Baier
  • Bettina Engelen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1601)


Lossy channel systems (LCSs) are models for communicating systems where the subprocesses are linked via unbounded FIFO channels which might lose messages. Link protocols, such as the Alternating Bit Protocol and HDLC can be modelled with these systems. The decidability of several verification problems of LCSs has been investigated by Abdulla & Jonsson [AJ93], AJ94], e.g. they have shown that the reach-ability problem for LCSs is decidable while LTL model checking is not. In this paper, we consider probabilistic LCSs (which are LCSs where the transitions are augmented with appropriate probabilities) as introduced by [IN97] and show that the question of whether or not a linear time property holds with probability 1 is decidable. More precisely, we show how LTLX model checking for (certain types of) probabilistic LCSs can be reduced to a reachability problem in a (non-probabilistic) LCS where the latter can be solved with the methods of [AJ93].


Markov Chain Model Check Temporal Logic Global State Qualitative Property 
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. [ABJ98]
    P. Abdulla, A. Bouajjani, and B. Jonsson. On-the-fly analysis of systems with unbounded, lossy FIFO channels. LNCS, 1427:305–318, 1998.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [AJ93]
    P. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Verifying programs with unreliable channels. Proc. LICS’93, pages 160–170, 1993. The full version with the same title has been published in Information and Computation, 127:91–101, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [AJ94]
    P. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Undecidable verification problems for programs with unreliable channels. LNCS, 820:316–327, 1994. The full version with the same title has been published in Information and Computation, 130:71–90, 1996.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [AK95]
    P. Abdulla and M. Kindahl. Decidability of simulation and bisimulation between lossy channel systems and finite state systems. LNCS, 962:333–347, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [AKP97]
    P. Abdulla, M. Kindahl, and D. Peled. An improved search strategy for lossy channel systems. In PSTV/FORTE. Chapman-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [ASBS95]
    A. Aziz, V. Singhal, R. Brayton, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. It usually works: The temporal logic of stochastic systems. Proc. CAV’95, 939:155–165, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [BBS92]
    J. Baeten, J. Bergstra, and S. Smolka. Axiomatizing probabilistic processes: ACP with generative probabilities (extended abstract). CONCUR’92, 630:472–485, 1992. The full version with the same title has been published in Information and Computation, 122:234–255, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [BCG88]
    M. Browne, E. Clarke, and O. Grumberg. Characterizing finite Kripke structures in propositional temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 59:115–131, 1988.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [BdA95]
    A. Bianco and L. de Alfaro. Model checking of probabilistic and nondeterministic systems. LNCS, 1026:499–513, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [BER99]
    C. Baier, B. Engelen, and M. Roggenbach. Establishing Qualitative Properties for Probabilistic Lossy Channel Systems. Technical Report 3/99, Universität Mannheim, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [BH97]
    C. Baier and H. Hermanns. Weak bisimulation for fully probabilistic processes. LNCS, 1254:119–130, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [BK98]
    C. Baier and M. Kwiatkowska. Model checking for a probabilistic branching time logic with fairness. Distributed Computing, 11:125–155, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [BM98]
    A. Bouajjani and R. Mayr. Model checking lossy vector addition systems. 1998. To appear in Proc. STACS’99, LNCS.Google Scholar
  14. [Bre68]
    L. Breiman. Probability. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.Google Scholar
  15. [BSW69]
    K. Bartlett, R. Scantlebury, and P. Wilkinson. A note on reliable full-duplex transmission over half-duplex links. Communications of the ACM, 12(5):260–261, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [BZ83]
    D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the ACM, 30(2):323–342, 1983.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [CC91]
    L. Christoff and I. Christoff. Efficient algorithms for verification of equivalences for probabilistic processes. Proc. CAV’91, LNCS, 575:310–321, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [CC92]
    L. Christoff and I. Christoff. Reasoning about safety and liveness properties for probabilistic processes. Proc. 12th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS, 652:342–355, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [CES86]
    E. Clarke, E. Emerson, and A. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8(2):244–263, 1986.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [CFI96]
    G. Cécé, A. Finkel, and S. Iyer. Unreliable channels are easier to verify than perfect channels. Information and Computation, 124(1):20–31, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [CY88]
    C. Courcoubetis and M. Yannakakis. Verifying temporal properties of finite-state probabilistic programs. Proc. FOCS’88, pages 338–345, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [CY95]
    C. Courcoubetis and M. Yannakakis. The complexity of probabilistic verification. Journal of the ACM, 42(4):857–907, 1995.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. [dA97]
    L. de Alfaro. Temporal logics for the specification of performance and reliability. Proc. STACS’97, LNCS, 1200:165–176, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. [Eme90]
    E. Emerson. Temporal and modal logic. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, B:995–1072, 1990.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [Fel68]
    W. Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Application. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [Fin94]
    A. Finkel. Decidability of the termination problem for completely specified protocols. Distributed Computing, 7(3):129–135, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [HJ94]
    H. Hansson and B. Jonsson. A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6(5):512–535, 1994.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [HS86]
    S. Hart and M. Sharir. Probabilistic propositional temporal logics. Information and Control, 70(2/3):97–155, 1986. This is the extended version of “Probabilistic Temporal Logics for Finite and Bounded Models”. In Proc. STOCS’84, 1–13, 1984.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. [HSP83]
    S. Hart, M. Sharir, and A. Pnueli. Termination of probabilistic concurrent program. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 5(3):356–380, 1983.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. [HT92]
    T. Huynh and L. Tian. On some equivalence relations for probabilistic processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, 17:211–234, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [IN96]
    P. Iyer and M. Narasimha. “Almost always” and “sometime definitely” are not enough: Probabilistic quantifiers and probabilistic model-checking. Technical Report TR-96-16, Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. [IN97]
    P. Iyer and M. Narasimha. Probabilistic lossy channel systems. Proc. TAPSOFT’97, LNCS, 1214:667–681, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. [ISO79]
    ISO. Data communications-HDLC procedures-elements of procedures. Technical Report TR-ISO-4335, International Standards Organization, Geneva, 1979.Google Scholar
  34. [JS90]
    C. Jou and S. Smolka. Equivalences, congruences, and complete axiomatizations for probabilistic processes. In Proc. CONCUR’90, LNCS, 458:367–383, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. [LS82]
    D. Lehmann and S. Shelah. Reasoning about time and chance. Information and Control, 53(3):165–198, 1982.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. [LS92]
    K. Larsen and A. Skou. Compositional verification of probabilistic processes. In CONCUR’92, LNCS, 630:456–471, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. [LT87]
    N. Lynch and M. Tuttle. Hierarchical Correctness Proofs For Distributed Algorithms. PODC’87, pages 137–151, 1987.Google Scholar
  38. [Lyn95]
    N. Lynch. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Series in Data Management Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  39. [MP92]
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems-Specification. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  40. [PZ93]
    A. Pnueli and L. Zuck. Probabilistic Verification. Information and Computation, 103(1):1–29, 1993. This is the extended version of “Probabilistic Verification by Tableaux”. In Proc. LICS’86, 322–331, 1986.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. [Saf88]
    S. Safra. On the complexity of ω-automata. FOCS’88, pages 319–327, 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [Seg95]
    R. Segala. Modeling and Verification of Randomized Distributed Real-Time Systems. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995.Google Scholar
  43. [Tho90]
    W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, B:133–191, 1990.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. [Var85]
    M. Vardi. Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs. FOCS’85, pages 327–338, 1985.Google Scholar
  45. [Var96]
    M. Vardi. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. LNCS, 1043:238–266, 1996.Google Scholar
  46. [VW86]
    M. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. LICS’ 86, pages 332–345, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. [VW94]
    M. Vardi and P. Wolper. Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation, 115(1):1–37, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. [WVS83]
    P. Wolper, M. Vardi, and A. Sistla. Reasoning about infinite computation paths (extended abstract). FOCS’83, pages 185–194, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christel Baier
    • 1
  • Bettina Engelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für Mathematik & Informatik, D7, 27Universität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations