- Timestamp:
- Mar 14, 2012, 3:40:47 PM (13 years ago)
- Location:
- papers/FDL2012
- Files:
-
- 1 added
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
papers/FDL2012/FDL2012.tex
r64 r65 23 23 \usepackage[francais, american]{babel} 24 24 \usepackage[babel=true,kerning=true]{microtype} 25 \usepackage[ruled]{algorithm2e} 25 26 26 27 \newtheorem{definition}{Definition} -
papers/FDL2012/abstraction_refinement.tex
r63 r65 31 31 \TODO{Rafinement par négation du contre-exemple} 32 32 The counterexample at a refinement step $i$, $\sigma$ is a path in the 33 abstract model $\widehat{M}_i$ which dissatisfy $\Phi$. In the counterexample given by the model-checker, the variables 'value in each states are boolean.33 abstract model $\widehat{M}_i$ which dissatisfy $\Phi$. In the counterexample given by the model-checker, the variables value in each states are boolean. 34 34 The spurious counter-example $\sigma$ is defined such that : 35 35 \begin{definition} … … 76 76 \subsection{Ordering of properties} 77 77 78 Before generating an abstract model to verify a global property $\phi$, the verified properties of all the components in the concrete model are ordered according to their pertinency in comparison to a global property $\phi$. In order to do so, the variable dependency of the variables present in global property $\phi$ has to be analysed. After this point, we refer to the variables present in the global property $\phi$ as \emph{primary variables}. 79 80 %\bigskip 81 82 The ordering of the properties will be based on the variable dependency graph. 83 The variables in the model are weighted according to their dependency level 84 \emph{vis-à -vis} primary variables and the properties will be weighted according to the sum of the weights of the variables present in it. We have decided to allocate a supplementary weight for variables which are present at the interface of a component whereas variables which do not interfere in the obtention of a primary variable will be weighted 0. Here is how we proceed: 85 86 87 \begin{enumerate} 88 89 \item {\emph{Establishment of primary variables' dependency and maximum graph depth}\\ 90 Each primary variable will be examined and their dependency graph is elobarated. The maximum graph depth among the primary variable dependency graphs will be identified and used to calibrate the weight of all the variables related to the global property. 91 Given the primary variables of $\phi$, $V_{\phi} = \langle v_{\phi_0}, v_{\phi_1}, ... , v_{\phi_k}, ... , v_{\phi_n} \rangle$ and $G{\_v_{\phi_k}}$ the dependency graph of primary variable $v_{\phi_k}$, we have the maximum graph depth $max_{d} = max(depth(Gv_{\phi_0}), depth(Gv_{\phi_1}), ... , depth(Gv_{\phi_k}), ... ,$\\$ depth(Gv_{\phi_n})) $. 92 93 } 94 95 \item {\emph{Weight allocation for each variables} \\ 96 Let's suppose $max_d$ is the maximum dependency graph depth calculated and $p$ is the unit weight. We allocate the variable weight as follows: 97 \begin{itemize} 98 \item{All the variables at degree $max_d$ of every dependency graph will be allocated the weight of $p$.} 99 \\ \hspace*{20mm} $Wv_{max_d} = p$ 100 \item{All the variables at degree $max_d - 1$ of every dependency graph will be allocated the weight of $2Wv_{max_d}$.} 101 \\ \hspace*{20mm} $Wv_{max_d - 1} = 2Wv_{max_d}$ 102 \item{...} 103 \item{All the variables at degree $1$ of every dependency graph will be allocated the weight of $2Wv_{2}$.} 104 \\ \hspace*{20mm} $Wv_{1} = 2Wv_{2}$ 105 \item{All the variables at degree $0$ (i.e. the primary variables) will be allocated the weight of $10Wv_{1}$.} 106 \\ \hspace*{20mm} $Wv_{0} = 10Wv_{1}$ 107 \end{itemize} 108 109 We can see here that the primary variables are given a considerable 110 ponderation due to their pertinency \emph{vis-à -vis} global property. Furthermore, we will allocate a supplementary weight of $3Wv_{1}$ to variables at the interface of a component as they are the variables which assure the connection between the components if there is at least one variable in the dependency graph established in the previous step in the property. All other non-related variables have a weight equals to $0$. 111 } 112 113 114 \item {\emph{Ordering of the properties} \\ 115 Properties will be ordered according to the sum of the weight of the variables in it. Therefore, given a property $\varphi_i$ which contains $n+1$ variables, $V_{\varphi_i} = \langle v_{\varphi_{i0}}, v_{\varphi_{i1}}, ... , v_{\varphi_{ik}}, ... , v_{\varphi_{in}} \rangle$, the weight of $\varphi_i$ , $W_{\varphi_i} = \sum_{k=0}^{n} Wv_{\varphi_{ik}}$ . 116 After this stage, we will check all the properties with weight $>0$ and allocate a supplementary weight of $3Wv_{1}$ for every variable at the interface present in the propery. After this process, the final weight of a property is obtained and the properties will be ordered in a list with the weight decreasing (the heaviest first). We will refer to the ordered list of properties related to the global property $\phi$ as $L_\phi$. 117 118 119 } 120 121 \end{enumerate} 122 123 %\bigskip 124 125 \emph{\underline{Example:}} \\ 126 127 For example, if a global property $\phi$ consists of 3 variables: $ p, q, r $ where: 128 \begin{itemize} 129 \item{$p$ is dependent of $a$ and $b$} 130 \item{$b$ is dependent of $c$} 131 \item{$q$ is dependent of $x$} 132 \item{$r$ is independent} 133 \end{itemize} 134 135 Example with unit weight= 50. 136 The primary variables: $p$, $q$ and $r$ are weighted $100x10=1000$ each. \\ 137 The secondary level variables : $a$, $b$ and $x$ are weighted $50x2=100$ each. \\ 138 The tertiary level variable $c$ is weighted $50$. \\ 139 The weight of a non-related variable is $0$. 140 141 So each verified properties available pertinency will be evaluated by adding the weights of all the variables in it. It is definitely not an exact pertinency calculation of properties but provides a good indicator of their possible impact on the global property. 142 143 \bigskip 144 \begin{figure}[h!] 145 \centering 146 % \includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{Dependency_graph_weight_PNG} 147 % \hspace*{-15mm} 148 \includegraphics{Dependency_graph_weight_PNG} 149 \caption{\label{DepGraphWeight} Example of weighting} 150 \end{figure} 151 152 %Dans la figure~\ref{étiquette} page~\pageref{étiquette}, ⊠153 154 155 156 After this pre-processing phase, we will have a list of properties $L_\phi $ ordered according to their pertinency in comparison to the global property. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 \subsection{Filtering properties} 165 166 The refinement process from $\widehat{M}_i$ to $\widehat{M}_{i+1}$ can be seperated into 2 steps: 167 168 \begin{enumerate} 169 170 \item {\emph{\underline{Step 1:}} \\ 171 172 As we would like to ensure the elimination of the counterexample previously found, we filter out properties that don't have an impact on the counterexample $\sigma_i$ thus won't eliminate it. In order to reach this obective, a Kripke Structure of the counterexample $\sigma_i$, $K(\sigma_i)$ is generated. $K(\sigma_i)$ is a succession of states corresponding to the counterexample path which dissatisfies the global property $\phi$. 173 174 \bigskip 175 176 \begin{definition} 177 \textbf{\emph{The counterexample $\sigma_i$ Kripke Structure $K(\sigma_i)$ :}} \\ 178 Let a counterexample of length $n$, $ \sigma_i = \langle s_{\bar{a}i,0}, s_{\bar{a}i,1},\\ s_{\bar{a}i,2}, ... , s_{\bar{a}i,k}, s_{\bar{a}i,k+1}, ... , s_{\bar{a}i,n}\rangle $ with $ \forall k \in [0,n-1]$, we have \\ 179 $K(\sigma_i) = (AP_{\sigma_i}, S_{\sigma_i}, S_{0\sigma_i}, L_{\sigma_i}, R_{\sigma_i})$ a 5-tuple consisting of : 180 181 \begin{itemize} 182 \item { $AP_{\sigma_i}$ : a finite set of atomic propositions which corresponds to the variables in the abstract model $\widehat{V}_{i}$ } 183 \item { $S_{\sigma_i} = \{s_{\bar{a}i,0}, s_{\bar{a}i,1}, s_{\bar{a}i,2}, ... , s_{\bar{a}i,k}, s_{\bar{a}i,k+1}, ... , s_{\bar{a}i,n}\}$} 184 \item { $S_{0\sigma_i} = \{s_{\bar{a}i,0}\}$} 185 \item { $L_{\sigma_i}$ : $S_{\sigma_i} \rightarrow 2^{AP_{\sigma_i}}$ : a labeling function which labels each state with the set of atomic propositions true in that state. } 186 \item { $R_{\sigma_i}$ = $ (s_{\bar{a}i,k}, s_{\bar{a}i,k+1})$ } 187 \end{itemize} 188 \end{definition} 189 190 %\bigskip 191 All the properties available are then model-checked on $K(\sigma_i)$. 192 193 If: 194 \begin{itemize} 195 \item {\textbf{$K(\sigma_i) \vDash \varphi \Rightarrow \varphi $ will not eliminate $\sigma_i$}} 196 \item {\textbf{$K(\sigma_i) \nvDash \varphi \Rightarrow \varphi $ will eliminate $\sigma_i$}} 197 \end{itemize} 198 199 %\bigskip 200 201 202 \begin{figure}[h!] 203 \centering 204 % \includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{K_sigma_i_S_PNG} 205 % \hspace*{-15mm} 206 \includegraphics{K_sigma_i_S_PNG} 207 \caption{\label{AKSNegCex} Kripke Structure of counterexample $\sigma_i$, $K(\sigma_i)$} 208 \end{figure} 209 210 %Dans la figure~\ref{étiquette} page~\pageref{étiquette}, ⊠211 212 %\bigskip 213 214 215 \begin{figure}[h!] 216 \centering 217 218 \begin{tikzpicture}[->,>=stealth',shorten >=1.5pt,auto,node distance=1.8cm, 219 thick] 220 \tikzstyle{every state}=[fill=none,draw=blue,text=black] 221 222 \node[initial,state] (A) {$s_{\bar{a}i,0}$}; 223 \node[state] (B) [below of=A] {$s_{\bar{a}i,1}$}; 224 225 \node[state] (C) [below of=B] {$s_{\bar{a}i,k}$}; 226 227 \node[state] (D) [below of=C] {$s_{\bar{a}i,n-1}$}; 228 \node[state] (E) [below of=D] {$s_{\bar{a}i,n}$}; 229 230 \path (A) edge node {} (B) 231 (B) edge node {} (C) 232 (C) edge node {} (D) 233 (D) edge node {} (E); 234 235 \end{tikzpicture} 236 237 \caption{\label{AKSNegCex} Kripke Structure of counterexample $\sigma_i$, $K(\sigma_i)$} 238 \end{figure} 239 240 241 Therefore all properties that are satisfied won't be chosen to be integrated in the next step of refinement. At this stage, we already have a list of potential properties that will definitely eliminate the current counterexample $\sigma_i$ and might converge the abstract model towards a model sufficient to verify the global property $\phi$. 242 243 } 244 %\bigskip 245 246 \item {\emph{\underline{Step 2:}} \\ 247 248 The property at the top of the list (not yet selected and excluding the properties which are satisfied by $K(\sigma_i)$) is selected to be integrated in the generation of $\widehat{M}_{i+1}$. 249 %\bigskip 250 251 } 252 \end{enumerate} 253 254 $\widehat{M}_{i+1}$ is model-checked and the refinement process is repeated until the model satisfies the global property or there is no property left to be integrated in next abstraction. 255 256 78 \input{ordering_filter_properties}
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.