Advertisement

Abstraction Refinement for Probabilistic Software

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5403)

Abstract

We present a methodology and implementation for verifying ANSI-C programs that exhibit probabilistic behaviour, such as failures or randomisation. We use abstraction-refinement techniques that represent probabilistic programs as Markov decision processes and their abstractions as stochastic two-player games. Our techniques target quantitative properties of software such as “the maximum probability of file-transfer failure” or “the minimum expected number of loop iterations” and the abstractions we construct yield lower and upper bounds on these properties, which then guide the refinement process. We build upon state-of-the-art techniques and tools, using SAT-based predicate abstraction, symbolic implementations of probabilistic model checking and components from GOTO-CC, SATABS and PRISM. Experimental results show that our approach performs very well in practice, successfully verifying actual networking software whose complexity is significantly beyond the scope of existing probabilistic verification tools.

Keywords

Model Check Markov Decision Process Stochastic Game Probabilistic Program Predicate Abstraction 
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.
    Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Game-based abstraction for Markov decision processes. In: Proc. QEST 2006, pp. 157–166. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: Predicate abstraction of ANSI-C programs using SAT. FMSD 25(2-3), 105–127 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hermanns, H., Wachter, B., Zhang, L.: Probabilistic CEGAR. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 162–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Argenio, P., Jeannet, B., Jensen, H., Larsen, K.: Reachability analysis of probabilistic systems by successive refinements. In: de Luca, L., Gilmore, S. (eds.) PROBMIV 2001, PAPM-PROBMIV 2001, and PAPM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2165, pp. 39–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han, T., Katoen, J.-P.: Counterexamples in probabilistic model checking. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Alfaro, L., Roy, P.: Magnifying-lens abstraction for Markov decision processes. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 325–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roy, P., Parker, D., Norman, G., de Alfaro, L.: Symbolic magnifying lens abstraction in Markov decision processes. In: Proc. QEST 2008. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Counterexample-guided planning. In: Proc. UAI 2005, pp. 104–111 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McIver, A., Morgan, C.: Abstraction, refinement and proof for probabilistic systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huth, M.: On finite-state approximants for probabilistic computation tree logic. Theoretical Computer Science 346(1), 113–134 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kattenbelt, M., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Game-based probabilistic predicate abstraction in PRISM. In: Proc. QAPL 2008(2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pierro, A.D., Wiklicky, H.: Concurrent constraint programming: Towards probabilistic abstract interpretation. In: Proc. PPDP 2000, pp. 127–138. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monniaux, D.: Abstract interpretation of programs as Markov decision processes. Science of Computer Programming 58(1-2), 179–205 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, M.: Probabilistic abstract interpretation of imperative programs using truncated normal distributions. In: Proc. QAPL 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Legay, A., Murawski, A., Ouaknine, J., Worrell, J.: On automated verification of probabilistic programs. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ciesinski, F., Baier, C.: Liquor: A tool for qualitative and quantitative linear time analysis of reactive systems. In: Proc. QEST 2006, pp. 131–132. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kemeny, J., Snell, J., Knapp, A.: Denumerable Markov Chains, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1976)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapley, L.: Stochastic games. Proc. Nat. Acad. Science 39, 1095–1100 (1953)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Alfaro, L.: Formal Verification of Probabilistic Systems. PhD thesis (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Condon, A.: On algorithms for simple stochastic games. Advances in computational complexity theory 13, 51–73 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: Proc. PLDI 2001, pp. 203–213 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Long, D.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kattenbelt, M., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: A game-based abstraction-refinement framework for Markov decision processes. Technical Report RR-08-06, Oxford University Computing Laboratory (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.: A practical and complete approach to predicate refinement. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 459–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henzinger, T., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Proc. POPL 2004, pp. 232–244. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Yorav, K.: SATABS: SAT-based predicate abstraction for ANSI-C. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 382–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hinton, A., Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM: A tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 441–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxford

Personalised recommendations