Paolo Baldan
Abstract
We study the model-checking problem for a logic for true concurrency, whose formulae predicate about events in computations and their causal dependencies. The logic, which represents the logical counterpart of history-preserving bisimilarity, is naturally interpreted over event structures or any formalism that can be given a causal semantics, like Petri nets. It includes least and greatest fixpoint operators and thus it can express properties of infinite computations. Since the event structure associated with a system is typically infinite (even if the system is finite state), already the decidability of model-checking is non-trivial. We first develop a local model-checking technique based on a tableau system, for which, over a class of event structures satisfying a suitable regularity condition, referred to as strong regularity, we prove termination, soundness, and completeness. The tableau system allows for a clean and intuitive proof of decidability, but a direct implementation of the procedure can be extremely inefficient. For easing the development of a more efficient model-checking technique, we move to an automata-theoretic framework. Given a formula and a strongly regular event structure, we show how to construct a parity tree automaton whose language is non-empty if and only if the event structure satisfies the formula. The automaton is usually infinite. We discuss how it can be quotiented to an equivalent finite automaton, where emptiness can be checked effectively. To show the applicability of the approach, we discuss how it instantiates to finite safe Petri nets, providing also a corresponding proof-of-concept model-checking tool.
- P. A. Abdulla, L. Kaati, and J. Högberg. 2006. Bisimulation minimization of tree automata. In Proceedings of the CIAA’06, O. H. Ibarra and H.-C. Yen (Eds.), Vol. 4094. Springer, 173--185.Google Scholar
- R. Alur, D. A. Peled, and W. Penczek. 1995. Model-checking of causality properties. In Proceedings of the LICS’95. IEEE Computer Society, 90--100.Google Scholar
- P. Baldan and A. Carraro. 2015. A causal view on non-intereference. Fundam. Inform. 140, 1 (2015), 1--38.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Baldan and S. Crafa. 2014. A logic for true concurrency. J. ACM 61, 4 (2014), 24:1--24:36.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paolo Baldan and Tommaso Padoan. 2017. Local model checking in a logic for true concurrency. In Proceedings of the FoSSaCS’17 (LNCS, Vol. 10203), Javier Esparza and Andrzej S. Murawski (Eds.). Springer, 407--423.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Baldan and T. Padoan. 2018. Automata for true concurrency properties. In Proceedings of the FoSSaCS’18, C. Baier and U. Del Lago (Eds.), Vol. 10803. Springer, 165--182.Google Scholar
- M. A. Bednarczyk. 1991. Hereditary History Preserving Bisimulations or What is the Power of the Future Perfect in Program Logics. Technical Report. Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
- E. Best, R. Devillers, A. Kiehn, and L. Pomello. 1991. Fully concurrent bisimulation. Acta Inform. 28 (1991), 231--261.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bradfield and S. Fröschle. 2002. Independence-friendly modal logic and true concurrency. Nord. J. Comput. 9, 1 (2002), 102--117.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Chalopin and V. Chepoi. 2017. A counterexample to Thiagarajan’s conjecture on regular event structures. In Proceedings of the ICALP’17 (LIPIcs, Vol. 80), I. Chatzigiannakis, P. Indyk, F. Kuhn, and A. Muscholl (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 101:1--101:14.Google Scholar
- E. M. Clarke and B.-H. Schlingloff. 2001. Model checking. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning, A. Robinson and A. Voronkov (Eds.). Elsevier.Google Scholar
- R. Cleaveland. 1990. Tableau-based model checking in the propositional mu-calculus. Acta Inform. 27, 8 (1990), 725--747.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. De Nicola and G. Ferrari. 1990. Observational logics and concurrency models. In Proceedings of the FST-TCS’90 (LNCS, Vol. 472), K. V. Nori and C. E. V. Madhavan (Eds.). Springer, 301--315.Google Scholar
- P. Degano, R. De Nicola, and U. Montanari. 1988. Partial orderings descriptions and observations of nondeterministic concurrent processes. In Proceedings of the REX Workshop (LNCS, Vol. 354), Jaco W. de Bakker, Willem P. de Roever, and Grzegorz Rozenberg (Eds.). Springer, 438--466.Google Scholar
- M. Dumas and L. García-Bañuelos. 2015. Process mining reloaded: Event structures as a unified representation of process models and event logs. In Proceedings of the Petri Nets’15 (LNCS, Vol. 9115), R. R. Devillers and A. Valmari (Eds.). Springer, 33--48.Google Scholar
- E. A. Emerson, C. S. Jutla, and A. P. Sistla. 2001. On model checking for the μ-calculus and its fragments. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 258, 1--2 (2001), 491--522.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Esparza and K. Heljanko. 2008. Unfoldings—A Partial Order Approach to Model Checking. Springer.Google Scholar
- A. Farzan and P. Madhusudan. 2006. Causal atomicity. In Proceedings of the CAV’06 (LNCS, Vol. 4144), T. Ball and R. B. Jones (Eds.). 315--328.Google Scholar
- J. Gutierrez. 2009. Logics and bisimulation games for concurrency, causality and conflict. In Proceedings of the FoSSaCS’09 (LNCS, Vol. 5504), L. de Alfaro (Ed.). Springer, 48--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Gutierrez. 2011. On Bisimulation and Model-checking for Concurrent Systems with Partial Order Semantics. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- J. Gutierrez and J. C. Bradfield. 2009. Model-checking games for fixpoint logics with partial order models. In Proceedings of the CONCUR’09 (LNCS, Vol. 5710), M. Bravetti and G. Zavattaro (Eds.). Springer, 354--368.Google Scholar
- D. Janin and I. Walukiewicz. 1996. On the expressive completeness of the propositional mu-calculus with respect to monadic second order logic. In Proceedings of the CONCUR’96, U. Montanari and V. Sassone (Eds.). Springer, 263--277.Google Scholar
- L. Jategaonkar and A. R. Meyer. 1996. Deciding true concurrency equivalences on safe, finite nets. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 154, 1 (1996), 107--143.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Jeffrey and J. Riely. 2016. On thin air reads towards an event structures model of relaxed memory. In Proceedings of the LICS’16, M. Grohe, E. Koskinen, and N. Shankar (Eds.). ACM, 759--767.Google Scholar
- M. Jurdzinski, M. Nielsen, and J. Srba. 2003. Undecidability of domino games and hhp-bisimilarity. Inform. Comput. 184, 2 (2003), 343--368.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Klauck. 2002. Algorithms for parity games. In Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research, Erich Grädel, Wolfgang Thomas, and Thomas Wilke (Eds.). Vol. 2500. Springer, 107--129.Google Scholar
- K. Lodaya and P. S. Thiagarajan. 1987. A modal logic for a subclass of event structures. In Proceedings of the ICALP’87. Springer-Verlag, 290--303.Google Scholar
- P. Madhusudan. 2003. Model-checking trace event structures. In Proceedings of the LICS’13. IEEE Computer Society, 371--380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- U. Montanari and M. Pistore. 1997. Minimal transition systems for history-preserving bisimulation. In Proceedings of the STACS’97 (LNCS, Vol. 1200), R. Reischuk and M. Morvan (Eds.). Springer, 413--425.Google Scholar
- A. W. Mostowski. 1985. Regular expressions for infinite trees and a standard form of automata. In Proceedings of Computation Theory: Fifth Symposium 1984 (LNCS, Vol. 208), A. Skowron (Ed.). Springer, 157--168.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Mukund and P. S. Thiagarajan. 1989. An axiomatization of event structures. In Proceedings of the FST-TCS’89, C. E. Veni Madhavan (Ed.). Springer Berlin, 143--160.Google Scholar
- M. Mukund and P. S. Thiagarajan. 1992. A logical characterization of well branching event structures. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96, 1 (1992), 35--72.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Nielsen and C. Clausen. 1995. Games and logics for a noninterleaving bisimulation. Nord. J. Comput. 2, 2 (1995), 221--249.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Padoan. 2018. True Concurrency Workbench. Retrieved from http://github.com/tpadoan/TCWB.Google Scholar
- W. Penczek. 1990. A temporal logic for event structures. In Mathematical Logic, P. P. Petkov (Ed.). Springer, 327--338. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4613-0609-2_23Google Scholar
- W. Penczek. 1995. Branching time and partial order in temporal logics. In Time and Logic: A Computational Approach. UCL Press, 179--228.Google Scholar
- W. Penczek. 1997. Model-checking for a subclass of event structures. In Proceedings of the TACAS’97 (LNCS, Vol. 1217), E. Brinksma (Ed.). Springer, 145--164.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. A. Petri. 1962. Kommunikation mit Automaten. Technischen Hoschule Darmstadt.Google Scholar
- I. Phillips and I. Ulidowski. 2014. Event identifier logic. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 24, 2 (2014), 1--51. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129513000510Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Pichon-Pharabod and P. Sewell. 2016. A concurrency semantics for relaxed atomics that permits optimisation and avoids thin-air executions. In Proceedings of the POPL’16, R. Bodík and R. Majumdar (Eds.). ACM, 622--633.Google Scholar
- S. Pinchinat, F. Laroussinie, and Ph. Schnoebelen. 1994. Logical Characterization of Truly Concurrent Bisimulation. Technical Report 114. LIFIA-IMAG, Grenoble.Google Scholar
- C. Prisacariu. 2014. Higher dimensional modal logic. CoRR abs/1405.4100 (2014), 43.Google Scholar
- Alexander M. Rabinovich and Boris A. Trakhtenbrot. 1988. Behaviour structures and nets. Fundam. Inform. 11 (1988), 357--404.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Stevens and C. Stirling. 1998. Practical model-checking using games. In Proceedings of the TACAS’98, B. Steffen (Ed.). Springer, 85--101.Google Scholar
- C. Stirling and D. Walker. 1991. Local model checking in the modal mu-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 89, 1 (1991), 161--177.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. S. Thiagarajan. 2002. Regular event structures and finite Petri nets: A conjecture. In Formal and Natural Computing—Essays Dedicated to Grzegorz Rozenberg (on occasion of his 60th birthday) (LNCS, Vol. 2300), W. Brauer, H. Ehrig, J. Karhumäki, and A. Salomaa (Eds.). Springer, 244--256.Google Scholar
- R. J. van Glabbeek and U. Goltz. 2001. Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Inform. 37, 4/5 (2001), 229--327.Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Vogler. 1991. Deciding history preserving bisimilarity. In Proceedings of the ICALP’91 (LNCS, Vol. 510), J. Albert, B. Monien, and M. Rodríguez-Artalejo (Eds.). Springer, 495--505.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Winskel. 1987. Event structures. In Petri Nets: Applications and Relationships to Other Models of Concurrency (LNCS, Vol. 255), W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg (Eds.). Springer, 325--392.Google Scholar
- G. Winskel. 2011. Events, causality and symmetry. Comput. J. 54, 1 (2011), 42--57.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Model Checking a Logic for True Concurrency
Recommendations
A Logic for True Concurrency
We propose a logic for true concurrency whose formulae predicate about events in computations and their causal dependencies. The induced logical equivalence is hereditary history-preserving bisimilarity, and fragments of the logic can be identified ...
Model checking propositional projection temporal logic based on SPIN
ICFEM'07: Proceedings of the formal engineering methods 9th international conference on Formal methods and software engineeringThis paper investigates a model checking algorithm for Propositional Projection Temporal Logic (PPTL) with finite models. To this end, a PPTL formula is transformed to a Normal Form Graph (NFG), and then a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA). The ...
Model Checking Propositional Projection Temporal Logic Based on SPIN
Formal Methods and Software EngineeringAbstractThis paper investigates a model checking algorithm for Propositional Projection Temporal Logic (PPTL) with finite models. To this end, a PPTL formula is transformed to a Normal Form Graph (NFG), and then a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA). ...
Comments