Paper detail

Verifying nondeterministic probabilistic channel systems against $ω$-regular linear-time properties

Lossy channel systems (LCSs) are systems of finite state automata that communicate via unreliable unbounded fifo channels. In order to circumvent the undecidability of model checking for nondeterministic LCSs, probabilistic models have been introduced, where it can be decided whether a linear-time property holds almost surely. However, such fully probabilistic systems are not a faithful model of nondeterministic protocols. We study a hybrid model for LCSs where losses of messages are seen as faults occurring with some given probability, and where the internal behavior of the system remains nondeterministic. Thus the semantics is in terms of infinite-state Markov decision processes. The purpose of this article is to discuss the decidability of linear-time properties formalized by formulas of linear temporal logic (LTL). Our focus is on the qualitative setting where one asks, e.g., whether a LTL-formula holds almost surely or with zero probability (in case the formula describes the bad behaviors). Surprisingly, it turns out that -- in contrast to finite-state Markov decision processes -- the satisfaction relation for LTL formulas depends on the chosen type of schedulers that resolve the nondeterminism. While all variants of the qualitative LTL model checking problem for the full class of history-dependent schedulers are undecidable, the same questions for finite-memory scheduler can be solved algorithmically. However, the restriction to reachability properties and special kinds of recurrent reachability properties yields decidable verification problems for the full class of schedulers, which -- for this restricted class of properties -- are as powerful as finite-memory schedulers, or even a subclass of them.

preprint2006arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.