@inproceedings{2517, abstract = {Traditional formal methods are based on a Boolean satisfaction notion: a reactive system satisfies, or not, a given specification. We generalize formal methods to also address the quality of systems. As an adequate specification formalism we introduce the linear temporal logic LTL[F]. The satisfaction value of an LTL[F] formula is a number between 0 and 1, describing the quality of the satisfaction. The logic generalizes traditional LTL by augmenting it with a (parameterized) set F of arbitrary functions over the interval [0,1]. For example, F may contain the maximum or minimum between the satisfaction values of subformulas, their product, and their average. The classical decision problems in formal methods, such as satisfiability, model checking, and synthesis, are generalized to search and optimization problems in the quantitative setting. For example, model checking asks for the quality in which a specification is satisfied, and synthesis returns a system satisfying the specification with the highest quality. Reasoning about quality gives rise to other natural questions, like the distance between specifications. We formalize these basic questions and study them for LTL[F]. By extending the automata-theoretic approach for LTL to a setting that takes quality into an account, we are able to solve the above problems and show that reasoning about LTL[F] has roughly the same complexity as reasoning about traditional LTL.}, author = {Almagor, Shaull and Boker, Udi and Kupferman, Orna}, location = {Riga, Latvia}, number = {Part 2}, pages = {15 -- 27}, publisher = {Springer}, title = {{Formalizing and reasoning about quality}}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-39212-2_3}, volume = {7966}, year = {2013}, } @article{2854, abstract = {We consider concurrent games played on graphs. At every round of a game, each player simultaneously and independently selects a move; the moves jointly determine the transition to a successor state. Two basic objectives are the safety objective to stay forever in a given set of states, and its dual, the reachability objective to reach a given set of states. First, we present a simple proof of the fact that in concurrent reachability games, for all ε>0, memoryless ε-optimal strategies exist. A memoryless strategy is independent of the history of plays, and an ε-optimal strategy achieves the objective with probability within ε of the value of the game. In contrast to previous proofs of this fact, our proof is more elementary and more combinatorial. Second, we present a strategy-improvement (a.k.a. policy-iteration) algorithm for concurrent games with reachability objectives. Finally, we present a strategy-improvement algorithm for turn-based stochastic games (where each player selects moves in turns) with safety objectives. Our algorithms yield sequences of player-1 strategies which ensure probabilities of winning that converge monotonically (from below) to the value of the game. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.}, author = {Chatterjee, Krishnendu and De Alfaro, Luca and Henzinger, Thomas A}, journal = {Journal of Computer and System Sciences}, number = {5}, pages = {640 -- 657}, publisher = {Elsevier}, title = {{Strategy improvement for concurrent reachability and turn based stochastic safety games}}, doi = {10.1016/j.jcss.2012.12.001}, volume = {79}, year = {2013}, } @proceedings{2885, abstract = {This volume contains the post-proceedings of the 8th Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science, MEMICS 2012, held in Znojmo, Czech Republic, in October, 2012. The 13 thoroughly revised papers were carefully selected out of 31 submissions and are presented together with 6 invited papers. The topics covered by the papers include: computer-aided analysis and verification, applications of game theory in computer science, networks and security, modern trends of graph theory in computer science, electronic systems design and testing, and quantum information processing.}, editor = {Kucera, Antonin and Henzinger, Thomas A and Nesetril, Jaroslav and Vojnar, Tomas and Antos, David}, location = {Znojmo, Czech Republic}, pages = {1 -- 228}, publisher = {Springer}, title = {{Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science}}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36046-6}, volume = {7721}, year = {2013}, } @misc{5402, abstract = {Linearizability requires that the outcome of calls by competing threads to a concurrent data structure is the same as some sequential execution where each thread has exclusive access to the data structure. In an ordered data structure, such as a queue or a stack, linearizability is ensured by requiring threads commit in the order dictated by the sequential semantics of the data structure; e.g., in a concurrent queue implementation a dequeue can only remove the oldest element. In this paper, we investigate the impact of this strict ordering, by comparing what linearizability allows to what existing implementations do. We first give an operational definition for linearizability which allows us to build the most general linearizable implementation as a transition system for any given sequential specification. We then use this operational definition to categorize linearizable implementations based on whether they are bound or free. In a bound implementation, whenever all threads observe the same logical state, the updates to the logical state and the temporal order of commits coincide. All existing queue implementations we know of are bound. We then proceed to present, to the best of our knowledge, the first ever free queue implementation. Our experiments show that free implementations have the potential for better performance by suffering less from contention.}, author = {Henzinger, Thomas A and Sezgin, Ali}, issn = {2664-1690}, pages = {16}, publisher = {IST Austria}, title = {{How free is your linearizable concurrent data structure?}}, doi = {10.15479/AT:IST-2013-123-v1-1}, year = {2013}, } @inproceedings{1376, abstract = {We consider the distributed synthesis problem for temporal logic specifications. Traditionally, the problem has been studied for LTL, and the previous results show that the problem is decidable iff there is no information fork in the architecture. We consider the problem for fragments of LTL and our main results are as follows: (1) We show that the problem is undecidable for architectures with information forks even for the fragment of LTL with temporal operators restricted to next and eventually. (2) For specifications restricted to globally along with non-nested next operators, we establish decidability (in EXPSPACE) for star architectures where the processes receive disjoint inputs, whereas we establish undecidability for architectures containing an information fork-meet structure. (3) Finally, we consider LTL without the next operator, and establish decidability (NEXPTIME-complete) for all architectures for a fragment that consists of a set of safety assumptions, and a set of guarantees where each guarantee is a safety, reachability, or liveness condition.}, author = {Chatterjee, Krishnendu and Henzinger, Thomas A and Otop, Jan and Pavlogiannis, Andreas}, booktitle = {13th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design}, location = {Portland, OR, United States}, pages = {18 -- 25}, publisher = {IEEE}, title = {{Distributed synthesis for LTL fragments}}, doi = {10.1109/FMCAD.2013.6679386}, year = {2013}, }