Abstract
Writing formal specifications for distributed systems is difficult. Even simple consistency requirements often turn out to be unrealizable because of the complicated information flow in the distributed system: not every information is available in every component, and information transmitted from other components may arrive with a delay or not at all, especially in the presence of faults. The problem of checking the distributed realizability of a temporal specification is, in general, undecidable. Semi-algorithms for synthesis, such as bounded synthesis, are only useful in the positive case, where they construct an implementation for a realizable specification, but not in the negative case: if the specification is unrealizable, the search for the implementation never terminates. In this paper, we introduce counterexamples to distributed realizability and present a method for the detection of such counterexamples for specifications given in linear-time temporal logic (LTL). A counterexample consists of a set of paths, each representing a different sequence of inputs from the environment, such that, no matter how the components are implemented, the specification is violated on at least one of these paths. We present a method for finding such counterexamples both for the classic distributed realizability problem and for the distributed realizability problem with faulty nodes. Our method considers, incrementally, larger and larger sets of paths until a counterexample is found. While counterexamples for full LTL may consist of infinitely many paths, we give a semantic characterization such that the required number of paths can be bounded. For this fragment, we thus obtain a decision procedure. Experimental results, obtained with a QBF-based prototype implementation, show that our method finds simple errors very quickly, and even problems with high combinatorial complexity, like the Byzantine Generals’ Problem, are tractable.
This work was partially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of SFB/TR 14 AVACS and by the Saarbrücken Graduate School of Computer Science, which receives funding from the DFG as part of the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lamport, L., Shostak, R.E., Pease, M.C.: The byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), 382–401 (1982)
Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In: Proc. FOCS 1990, pp. 746–757 (1990)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Synthesizing distributed systems. In: LICS, pp. 389–398. IEEE Computer Society (2001)
Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Uniform distributed synthesis. In: LICS, pp. 321–330. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Bounded synthesis. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15(5-6), 519–539 (2013)
Brewer, E.A.: Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In: PODC, p. 7. ACM (2000)
Church, A.: Logic, arithmetic and automata. In: Proc. 1962 Intl. Congr. Math., Upsala, pp. 23–25 (1963)
Abadi, M., Lamport, L., Wolper, P.: Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In: Ronchi Della Rocca, S., Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Synthesis with incomplete information. In: Proc. of ICTL (1997)
Raman, V., Kress-Gazit, H.: Analyzing unsynthesizable specifications for high-level robot behavior using LTLMoP. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 663–668. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Li, W., Dworkin, L., Seshia, S.A.: Mining assumptions for synthesis. In: MEMOCODE, pp. 43–50. IEEE (2011)
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B.: Environment assumptions for synthesis. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. In: PODC, pp. 50–61. ACM (1984)
Dimitrova, R., Finkbeiner, B.: Synthesis of fault-tolerant distributed systems. In: Liu, Z., Ravn, A.P. (eds.) ATVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5799, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Coordination logic. In: Dawar, A., Veith, H. (eds.) CSL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6247, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Henriksen, J.G., Jensen, J.L., Jørgensen, M.E., Klarlund, N., Paige, R., Rauhe, T., Sandholm, A.: Mona: Monadic second-order logic in practice. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 89–110. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Biere, A., Lonsing, F., Seidl, M.: Blocked clause elimination for QBF. In: Bjørner, N., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. (eds.) CADE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6803, pp. 101–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Lonsing, F., Biere, A.: DepQBF: A dependency-aware QBF solver. JSAT 7(2-3), 71–76 (2010)
Balabanov, V., Jiang, J.H.R.: Unified QBF certification and its applications. Formal Methods in System Design 41(1), 45–65 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Finkbeiner, B., Tentrup, L. (2014). Detecting Unrealizable Specifications of Distributed Systems. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8413. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54861-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54862-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)