skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Fixpoint games on continuous lattices

Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many analysis and verifications tasks, such as static program analyses and model-checking for temporal logics, reduce to the solution of systems of equations over suitable lattices. Inspired by recent work on lattice-theoretic progress measures, we develop a game-theoretical approach to the solution of systems of monotone equations over lattices, where for each single equation either the least or greatest solution is taken. A simple parity game, referred to as fixpoint game, is defined that provides a correct and complete characterisation of the solution of systems of equations over continuous lattices, a quite general class of lattices widely used in semantics. For powerset lattices the fixpoint game is intimately connected with classical parity games for µ-calculus model-checking, whose solution can exploit as a key tool Jurdziński’s small progress measures. We show how the notion of progress measure can be naturally generalised to fixpoint games over continuous lattices and we prove the existence of small progress measures. Our results lead to a constructive formulation of progress measures as (least) fixpoints. We refine this characterisation by introducing the notion of selection that allows one to constrain the plays in the parity game, enabling an effective (and possibly efficient) solution of the game, and thus of the associated verification problem. We also propose a logic for specifying the moves of the existential player that can be used to systematically derive simplified equations for efficiently computing progress measures. We discuss potential applications to the model-checking of latticed µ-calculi.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a26-baldan.webm

References

  1. Samson Abramsky and Achim Jung. 1994. Domain Theory. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Samson Abramsky, Dov Gabbay, and Thomas Stephen Edward Maibaum (Eds.). Oxford University Press, 1–168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Shaull Almagor, Udi Boker, and Orna Kupferman. 2014. Discounting in LTL. In Proc. of TACAS ’14 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 8413. Springer, 424–439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Paolo Baldan, Barbara König, Christina Mika-Michalski, and Tommaso Padoan. 2018. Fixpoint Games on Continuous Lattices. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11404 arXiv:1810.11404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Harsh Beohar, Barbara König, Sebastian Küpper, and Alexandra Silva. 2017. Conditional Transition Systems with Upgrades. In Proc. of TASE ’17. IEEE Xplore, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Filippo Bonchi, Pierre Ganty, Roberto Giacobazzi, and Dusko Pavlovic. 2018. Sound up-to techniques and Complete abstract domains. In Proc. of LICS ’18. ACM, 175–184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Julian Bradfield and Igor Walukiewicz. 2018. The mu-Calculus and Model Checking. In Handbook of Model Checking, Edmund M. Clarke, Thomas A. Henzinger, Helmut Veith, and Roderick Bloem (Eds.). Springer, 871–919.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Anca Browne, Edmund M. Clarke, Somesh Jha, David E. Long, and Wilfredo R. Marrero. 1997. An improved algorithm for the evaluation of fixpoint expressions. Theoretical Computer Science 178, 1–2 (1997), 237–255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cristian S. Calude, Sanjay Jain, Bakhadyr Khoussainov, Wei Li, and Frank Stephan. 2017. Deciding parity games in quasipolynomial time. In Proc. of STOC ’17. ACM, 252–263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Rance Cleaveland. 1990. Tableau-based model checking in the propositional mu-calculus. Acta Informatica 27, 8 (1990), 725–747. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rance Cleaveland, Marion Klein, and Bernhard Steffen. 1992. Faster model checking for the modal Mu-Calculus. In Proc. of CAV 1992 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 663. Springer, 410–422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Maxime Cordy, Andreas Classen, Gilles Perrouin, Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Patrick Heymans, and Axel Legay. 2012. Simulationbased abstractions for software product-line model checking. In Proc. of ICSE ’12. IEEE, 672–682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Patrick Cousot and Radhia Cousot. 1977. Abstract Interpretation: A Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In Proc. of POPL ’77 (Los Angeles, California). ACM, 238–252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Radhia Cousot and Patrick Cousot. 1979. Constructive versions of Tarski’s fixed point theorems. Pacific J. Math. 82, 1 (1979), 43–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Brian A. Davey and Hilary A. Priestley. 2002. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Giorgio Delzanno and Jean-François Raskin. 2000. Symbolic Representation of Upward-Closed Sets. In Proc. of TACAS ’00 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Susanne Graf and Michael I. Schwartzbach (Eds.), Vol. 1785. Springer, 426–440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Pantelis E. Eleftheriou, Costas D. Koutras, and Christos Nomikos. 2012. Notions of bisimulation for Heyting-valued modal languages. Journal of Logic and Computation 22 (2012), 213–235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Allen Emerson. 1985. Automata, tableaux, and temporal logics. In Proceedings of Logics of Programs 1985 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), R. Parikh (Ed.), Vol. 193. Springer, 79–88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Allen Emerson and Charanjit S. Jutla. 1991. Tree automata, Mu-Calculus and determinacy. In Proc. of SFCS ’91. IEEE, 368–377. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Melvin Fitting. 1991. Many-valued modal logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 15 (1991), 235–254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Gaëlle Fontaine. 2008. Continuous Fragment of the µ-Calculus. In Proc. of CSL ’08 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 5213. Springer, 139–153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Thomas Martin Gawlitza and Helmut Seidl. 2011. Solving systems of rational equations through strategy iteration. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33, 3 (2011), 11:1–11:48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Gerhard Gierz, Karl H. Hofmann, Klaus Keimel, Jimmie D. Lawson, Michael W. Mislove, and Dana S. Scott. 2003. Continuous Lattices and Domains. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Orna Grumberg, Martin Lange, Martin Leucker, and Sharon Shoham. 2005. Don’t Know in the µ-Calculus. In Proc. of VMCAI ’05 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Radhia Cousot (Ed.), Vol. 3385. Springer, 233–249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Helle Hvid Hansen, Clemens Kupke, Johannes Marti, and Yde Venema. 2017. Parity Games and Automata for Game Logic. In Proc. of DALI ’17 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 10669. Springer, 115–132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ichiro Hasuo, Shunsuke Shimizu, and Corina Cîrstea. 2016. Lattice-theoretic progress measures and coalgebraic model checking. In Proc. of POPL ’16. ACM, 718–732. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Daniel Hirschkoff. 1998. Automatically Proving Up To Bisimulation. In Proc. of MFCS ’98 Workshop on Concurrency (Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science). Elsevier, 75–89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Michael Huth and Marta Kwiatkowska. 1997. Quantitative analysis and model checking. In Proc. of LICS ’97. IEEE, 111–122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Marcin Jurdziński. 2000. Small Progress Measures for Solving Parity Games. In Proc. of STACS ’00 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 1770. Springer, 290–301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Dexter Kozen. 1983. Results on the Propositional µ-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 27, 3 (1983), 333–354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Orna Kupfermann and Yoad Lustig. 2007. Latticed Simulation Relations and Games. In Proc. of ATVA ’07 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 4672. Springer, 316–330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Angelika Mader. 1997. Verification of Modal Properties Using Boolean Equation Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. TU München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Annabelle McIver and Carroll Morgan. 2007. Results on the quantitative µ-calculus qMµ. ACM Trans. Comp. Log. 8, 1:3 (2007), 43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Matteo Mio. 2012. On the Equivalence of Game and Denotational Semantics for the Probabilistic µ-Calculus. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8, 2:07 (2012), 1–21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Matteo Mio and Alex Simpson. 2015. Łukasiewicz µ-calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00797 arXiv:1510.00797.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Matteo Mio and Alex Simpson. 2017. Łukasiewicz µ-calculus. Fundamenta Informaticae 150, 3-4 (2017), 317–346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Flemming Nielson, Hanne Riis Nielson, and Chris Hankin. 1999. Principles of Program Analysis. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Katja Poltermann. 2017. A Modal Logic for Conditional Transition Systems. Bachelor’s thesis. Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Damien Pous and Davide Sangiorgi. 2011. Enhancements of the bisimulation proof method. In Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction, Davide Sangiorgi and Jan Rutten (Eds.). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Davide Sangiorgi. 2011. Introduction to Bisimulation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Klaus Schneider. 2004. Verification of Reactive Systems: Formal Methods and Algorithms. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Dana Scott. 1972. Continuous lattices. In Toposes, Algebraic Geometry and Logic (Lecture Notes in Mathematics), F. W. Lawvere (Ed.). Springer, 97–136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Helmut Seidl. 1996. Fast and simple nested fixpoints. Inform. Process. Lett. 59, 6 (1996), 303–308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Perdita Stevens and Colin Stirling. 1998. Practical Model-Checking Using Games. In Proc. of TACAS ’98 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 1384. Springer, 85–101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Colin Stirling. 1995. Local Model Checking Games. In Proc. of CONCUR ’95 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 962. Springer, 1–11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Colin Stirling and David Walker. 1991. Local Model Checking in the Modal mu-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 89, 1 (1991), 161–177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Alfred Tarski. 1955. A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific J. Math. 5 (1955), 285–309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Franck van Breugel and James Worrell. 2005. A behavioural pseudometric for probabilistic transition systems. Theoretical Computer Science 331 (2005), 115–142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Yde Venema. 2008. Lectures on the modal µ-calculus. Lecture notes, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Wieslaw Zielonka. 1998. Infinite Games on Finitely Coloured Graphs with Applications to Automata on Infinite Trees. Theoretical Computer Science 200, 1-2 (1998), 135–183. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fixpoint games on continuous lattices

              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!