skip to main content
research-article

Maximal Synthesis for Hennessy-Milner Logic

Published:21 January 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article concerns the maximal synthesis for Hennessy-Milner Logic on Kripke structures with labeled transitions. We formally define, and prove the validity of, a theoretical framework that modifies a Kripke model to the least possible extent in order to satisfy a given HML formula. Applications of this work can be found in the field of controller synthesis and supervisory control for discrete-event systems. Synthesis is realized technically by first projecting the given Kripke model onto a bisimulation-equivalent partial tree representation, thereby unfolding up to the depth of the synthesized formula. Operational rules then define the required adaptations upon this structure in order to achieve validity of the synthesized formula. Synthesis might result in multiple valid adaptations, which are all related to the original model via simulation. Each simulant of the original Kripke model, which satisfies the synthesized formula, is also related to one of the synthesis results via simulation. This indicates maximality, or maximal permissiveness, in the context of supervisory control. In addition to the formal construction of synthesis as presented in this article, we present it in algorithmic form and analyze its computational complexity. Computer-verified proofs for two important theorems in this article have been created using the Coq proof assistant.

References

  1. B. Aminof, F. Mogavero, and A. Murano. 2014. Synthesis of hierarchical systems. Science of Computer Programming 83 (2014), 56--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Antoniotti. 1995. Synthesis and Verification of Discrete Controllers for Robotics and Manufacturing Devices with Temporal Logic and the Control-D System. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Antoniotti and B. Mishra. 1995. The Supervisor Synthesis Problem for Unrestricted CTL Is NP-complete. Technical Report. New York University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Baeten, B. van Beek, A. van Hulst, and J. Markovski. 2011. A process algebra for supervisory coordination. In Process Algebra and Coordination. EPTCS, 36--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. B. Barras, S. Boutin, C. Cornes, J. Courant, J. Filliatre, E. Gimenez, H. Herbelin, G. Huet, C. Munoz, and C. Murthy. 1997. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual: Version 6.1. Technical Report. INRIA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Bull and K. Segerberg. 1994. Basic modal logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Springer, 1--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. C. Cassandras and S. Lafortune. 1999. Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. E. Clarke and E. Emerson. 2008. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In 25 Years of Model Checking. Springer, 196--215. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Cleaveland and B. Steffen. 1993. A linear-time model checking algorithm for the alternation-free modal mu-calculus. Formal Methods in System Design 2, 2 (1993), 121--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Deshpande and P. Varaiya. 1996. Semantic tableau for control of PLTL formulae. In Decision and Control. IEEE, 2243--2248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. N. D’Ippolito, V. Braberman, N. Piterman, and S. Uchitel. 2010. Synthesis of live behaviour models. In Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 77--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. D’Ippolito, V. Braberman, N. Piterman, and S. Uchitel. 2013. Synthesizing nonanomalous event-based controllers for liveness goals. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 22, 1 (2013), 1--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Hennessy and R. Milner. 1985. Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. Journal of the ACM 32, 1 (1985), 137--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Jiang and R. Kumar. 2006. Supervisory control of discrete event systems with CTL* temporal logic specifications. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 44, 6 (2006), 2079--2103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. O. Kupferman and M. Vardi. 2000. μ-calculus synthesis. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. Springer, 497--507. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. O. Kupferman, M. Vardi, and P. Wolper. 2001. Module checking. Information and Computation 164, 2 (2001), 322--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y. Lustig and M. Vardi. 2013. Synthesis from component libraries. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15, 5--6 (2013), 603--618.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. Lüttgen and W. Vogler. 2011. Safe reasoning with logic LTS. Theoretical Computer Science 412, 28 (2011), 3337--3357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Z. Manna and P. Wolper. 1984. Synthesis of communicating processes from temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 6, 1 (1984), 68--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. 1989. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, 179--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. P. Ramadge and W. Wonham. 1987. Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 25, 1 (1987), 206--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. O. Sokolsky and S. Smolka. 1994. Incremental model checking in the modal mu-calculus. In Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 351--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. van Glabbeek. 1993. The linear time-branching time spectrum II. In Concurrency Theory. Springer, 66--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. van Hulst. 2013. Coq v8.3 Formalization. Retrieved from http://seweb.se.wtb.tue.nl/∼ahulst/acmtecs/. (Oct. 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. van Hulst, M. Reniers, and W. Fokkink. 2013. Maximal synthesis for Hennessy-Milner Logic. In Application of Concurrency to System Design. IEEE, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. van Hulst, M. Reniers, and W. Fokkink. 2014. Maximal synthesis for Hennessy-Milner Logic with the box-modality. In Workshop on Discrete Event Systems. IEEE, 278--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. A. van Hulst, M. Reniers, and W. Fokkink. 2015. Maximally permissive controlled system synthesis for modal logic. In 41st International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science. Springer, 230--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Vardi. 1996. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In Banff Higher Order Workshop. Springer, 238--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Ziller and K. Scheider. 2005. Combining supervisory synthesis and model checking. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 4, 2 (2005), 331--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Maximal Synthesis for Hennessy-Milner Logic

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!