on the complexity of vas reachability
play

On the Complexity of VAS Reachability Sylvain Schmitz LSV, ENS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 30, 2023 •399 likes •1.58k views

Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives On the Complexity of VAS Reachability Sylvain Schmitz LSV, ENS Paris-Saclay & CNRS, Universit e Paris-Saclay INFINITY 2018 1/20 Vector Addition

  1. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives “Simple Runs” ( Θ Condition) [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] pump up × 3 solution path × 1 remainder × 3 pump down (0,1) × 3 (6,0) 6/20

  2. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  3. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  4. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � � decompose � � 7/20

  5. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  6. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  7. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  8. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] no can we build a “simple run”? yes � � , , , � decompose � � 7/20

  9. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination “Finally the checker has to verify that the process comes to an end. Here again he should be assisted by the programmer giving a further definite assertion to be verified. This may take the form of a quantity which is asserted to decrease continually and vanish when the machine stops.” [Turing’49] 8/20

  10. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination “Finally the checker has to verify that the process comes to an end. Here again he should be assisted by the programmer giving a further definite assertion to be verified. This may take the form of a quantity which is asserted to decrease continually and vanish when the machine stops. To the pure mathematician it is natural to give an ordinal number.” [Turing’49] 8/20

  11. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination of the Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] ω ω 2 Ranking Function ∨ α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . 9/20

  12. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination of the Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] ω ω 2 Ranking Function ∨ α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . 9/20

  13. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination of the Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] ω ω 2 Ranking Function ∨ α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . 9/20

  14. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Termination of the Decomposition Algorithm [Mayr’81, Kosaraju’82, Lambert’92] ω ω 2 Ranking Function ∨ α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . 9/20

  15. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Demystifying Reachability in Vector Addition Systems [Leroux & S.’15; S.’17] Ideal Decomposition Theorem The Decomposition Algorithm computes the ideal decomposition of the set of runs from source to target. Upper Bound Theorem Reachability in vector addition systems is in quadratic Ackermann. 10/20

  16. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Upper Bounds How to bound the running time of algorithms with ordinal-based termination proofs? Information and Computation 160 , 109 � 127 (2000) doi:10.1006 � inco.1999.2843, available online at http: �� www.idealibrary.com on /tcs /loca te r.com vie nce 256 (2001) 63–92 www.e lse re ! r Scie rywhe A l g l Com pute o r ve i t h ore tica s e m i The nsition syste m c A n a W e l y l l s i s d tra . Pdt Wilson, Q u o f e n ∗ a s P r ll-structure ri cation, ENS de Cachan & CNRS UMR 8643, 61 av e b e l i - o o g h n o r d e r a m h . S c r e s We , P d D w i n k e l Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden o t h A . F i m a x, France Parosh Aziz Abdulla i n s 1 94235 Cachan Ce de ci cation and Ve Lab. Spe E-mail: parosh � docs.uu.se s f o r s e t m e t s y i s Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science , University of Latvia , Riga , Latvia t e - s t a t h a t n i - n i t a t s e Ka s o f e e n s S T S � rlis C 8 era c l a s b e w t h e W e n e r a l e r i n g o f t a l � ns a g - o r d t m e n t a s s i c ) a r e q u a s i e t e r a o f c l S T S s w e l - l e n s i v m p l e s v e d . E-mail: karlis � cclu.lv s ( W o f a n e x t e x a r s e e r r a c t s t e m e n c e d e a m a n y i g h s t A b s t o n s y e x s i t p r o v i l o w A l l r Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden a n s t i i n t h e w e n s a l B . V . e d r t e l y o r t i c l e , n i t i o e n c e u c t u r t l s r h i s a d e d e - r S c i Bengt Jonsson e l l - s t r r e s u . I n t p r o v e s v i e W b l i i t y t i o n s u r i m 0 1 E l e c i d a t r a n s i s . O � c 2 0 i c h d h t e r e u s l t S s . w h w t i h n e w W S T a t i b e l v e r a l s o f E-mail: bengt � docs.uu.se c o m p w s e a n c e e r i n g d s h o s n i s t i - o r d a a n e e n a - q u a s i d e b e s W e l l m s t o a t i o n ; s y s t e e i r - c s ; V and y s t m e i t e s n I - n Department of Information Management , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan o d r s : K e y w Yih-Kuen Tsay h e o - o t h t o r b E-mail: tsay � im.ntu.edu.tw e l d f e s i n v e - v a n c i o n m s a c i t e a d o d u c t s y s t e v e r y s s i v m t h e I n t r a t e s a m p r e f r o Over the past few years increasing research effort has been directed 1 . t e - t s m s i c e i i o n s n n i s y s t e y s i n p i l c a t [ 1 6 ] n o f i a n d c i a l l c a p t e m s towards the automatic verification of infinite-state systems. This paper is a t o i m s e s p e a l i s t i e s y s e r i c o g r a e n s t , a l r e - n i t t e m s concerned with identifying general mathematical structures which 1 . V o f p r o p m e v e r h f o r r s y s 1 . i o n e v e l e i n s r o a c e d o f - c a t c a l d a s i b l a p p e o l p serve as sufficient conditions for achieving decidability. v e r i a r c t i d f e k i n g d e v r m a l n d p r o v e c h e c l b e s F o c h a g y p o d e l - d w e l y e a r decidability results for a class of systems s e a r h n o l o u l m c o u l c e n t 11/20 a l r e t e c c e s f s o g y n r e e which consist of a finite control r e t i c a t i o n y s u c h n o l o t e d i i s t v i e r i - c i g h l n t e c d e v o f p o m a l v h e h c a t o i b e e n a l t h The results assume f o r l d . T v e r i - h a s g w e w o r n g t h a t i s i n s t r i a l w o r k i w o r k s u r p r which d u a f a � ∗ � � � �

  17. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Upper Bounds How to bound the running time of algorithms with wqo-based termination proofs? Information and Computation 160 , 109 � 127 (2000) doi:10.1006 � inco.1999.2843, available online at http: �� www.idealibrary.com on /tcs /loca te r.com vie nce 256 (2001) 63–92 www.e lse re ! r Scie rywhe A l g l Com pute o r ve i t h ore tica s e m i The nsition syste m c A n a W e l y l l s i s d tra . Pdt Wilson, Q u o f e n ∗ a s P r ll-structure ri cation, ENS de Cachan & CNRS UMR 8643, 61 av e b e l i - o o g h n o r d e r a m h . S c r e s We , P d D w i n k e l Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden o t h A . F i m a x, France Parosh Aziz Abdulla i n s 1 94235 Cachan Ce de ci cation and Ve Lab. Spe E-mail: parosh � docs.uu.se s f o r s e t m e t s y i s Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science , University of Latvia , Riga , Latvia t e - s t a t h a t n i - n i t a t s e Ka s o f e e n s S T S � rlis C 8 era c l a s b e w t h e W e n e r a l e r i n g o f t a l � ns a g - o r d t m e n t a s s i c ) a r e q u a s i e t e r a o f c l S T S s w e l - l e n s i v m p l e s v e d . E-mail: karlis � cclu.lv s ( W o f a n e x t e x a r s e e r r a c t s t e m e n c e d e a m a n y i g h s t A b s t o n s y e x s i t p r o v i l o w A l l r Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden a n s t i i n t h e w e n s a l B . V . e d r t e l y o r t i c l e , n i t i o e n c e u c t u r t l s r h i s a d e d e - r S c i Bengt Jonsson e l l - s t r r e s u . I n t p r o v e s v i e W b l i i t y t i o n s u r i m 0 1 E l e c i d a t r a n s i s . O � c 2 0 i c h d h t e r e u s l t S s . w h w t i h n e w W S T a t i b e l v e r a l s o f E-mail: bengt � docs.uu.se c o m p w s e a n c e e r i n g d s h o s n i s t i - o r d a a n e e n a - q u a s i d e b e s W e l l m s t o a t i o n ; s y s t e e i r - c s ; V and y s t m e i t e s n I - n Department of Information Management , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan o d r s : K e y w Yih-Kuen Tsay h e o - o t h t o r b E-mail: tsay � im.ntu.edu.tw e l d f e s i n v e - v a n c i o n m s a c i t e a d o d u c t s y s t e v e r y s s i v m t h e I n t r a t e s a m p r e f r o Over the past few years increasing research effort has been directed 1 . t e - t s m s i c e i i o n s n n i s y s t e y s i n p i l c a t [ 1 6 ] n o f i a n d c i a l l c a p t e m s towards the automatic verification of infinite-state systems. This paper is a t o i m s e s p e a l i s t i e s y s e r i c o g r a e n s t , a l r e - n i t t e m s concerned with identifying general mathematical structures which 1 . V o f p r o p m e v e r h f o r r s y s 1 . i o n e v e l e i n s r o a c e d o f - c a t c a l d a s i b l a p p e o l p serve as sufficient conditions for achieving decidability. v e r i a r c t i d f e k i n g d e v r m a l n d p r o v e c h e c l b e s F o c h a g y p o d e l - d w e l y e a r decidability results for a class of systems s e a r h n o l o u l m c o u l c e n t 11/20 a l r e t e c c e s f s o g y n r e e which consist of a finite control r e t i c a t i o n y s u c h n o l o t e d i i s t v i e r i - c i g h l n t e c d e v o f p o m a l v h e h c a t o i b e e n a l t h The results assume f o r l d . T v e r i - h a s g w e w o r n g t h a t i s i n s t r i a l w o r k i w o r k s u r p r which d u a f a � ∗ � � � �

  18. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Upper Bounds How to bound the running time of algorithms with wqo-based termination proofs? wqos ubiquitous in infinite-state verification Information and Computation 160 , 109 � 127 (2000) doi:10.1006 � inco.1999.2843, available online at http: �� www.idealibrary.com on /tcs /loca te r.com vie nce 256 (2001) 63–92 www.e lse re ! r Scie rywhe A l g l Com pute o r ve i t h ore tica s e m i The nsition syste m c A n a W e l y l l s i s d tra . Pdt Wilson, Q u o f e n ∗ a s P r ll-structure ri cation, ENS de Cachan & CNRS UMR 8643, 61 av e b e l i - o o g h n o r d e r a m h . S c r e s We , P d D w i n k e l Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden o t h A . F i m a x, France Parosh Aziz Abdulla i n s 1 94235 Cachan Ce de ci cation and Ve Lab. Spe E-mail: parosh � docs.uu.se s f o r s e t m e t s y i s Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science , University of Latvia , Riga , Latvia t e - s t a t h a t i n - n i a t t s e Ka s o f e e n s S T S � rlis C 8 era c l a s b e t w h e W e n e r a l e r i n g o f t a l � ns a g - o r d t m e n t a s s i c ) a r e q u a s i e t e r a o f c l S T S s w e l - l e n s i v m p l e s v e d . E-mail: karlis � cclu.lv s ( W o f a n e x t e x a r s e e r r a c t s t e m e n c e d e a m a n y i g h s t A b s t o n s y e x s i t p r o v i l o w A l l r Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden a n s t i i n t h e w e n s a l B . V . e d r t e l y o r t i c l e , n i t i o e n c e u c t u r t l s r h i s a d e d e - r S c i Bengt Jonsson e l l - s t r r e s u . I n t p r o v e s v i e W b l i i t y t i o n s u r i m 0 1 E l e c i d a t r a n s i s . O � c 2 0 i c h d h t e r e u s l t S s . w h w t i h n e w W S T a t i b e l v e r a l s o f E-mail: bengt � docs.uu.se c o m p w s e a n c e e r i n g d s h o s n i s t i - o r d a a n e e n a - q u a s i d e b e s W e l l m s t o a t i o n ; s y s t e e i r - c s ; V and y s t m e i t e s n I - n Department of Information Management , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan o d r s : K e y w Yih-Kuen Tsay h e o - o t h t o r b E-mail: tsay � im.ntu.edu.tw e l d f e s i n v e - v a n c i o n m s a c i t e a d o d u c t s y s t e v e r y s s i v m t h e I n t r a t e s a m p r e f r o Over the past few years increasing research effort has been directed 1 . t e - t s m s i c e i i o n s n n i s y s t e y s i n p i l c a t [ 1 6 ] n o f i a n d c i a l l c a p t e m s towards the automatic verification of infinite-state systems. This paper is a t o i m s e s p e a l i s t i e s y s e r i c o g r a e n s t , a l r e - n i t t e m s concerned with identifying general mathematical structures which 1 . V o f p r o p m e v e r h f o r r s y s 1 . i o n e v e l e i n s r o a c e d o f - c a t c a l d a s i b l a p p e o l p serve as sufficient conditions for achieving decidability. v e r i a r c t i d f e k i n g d e v r m a l n d p r o v e c h e c l b e s F o c h a g y p o d e - l d w e l y e a r decidability results for a class of systems s e a r h n o l o u l m c o u l c e n t 11/20 a l r e t e c c e s s f o g y n e r e which consist of a finite control r e t i c a t o i n y s u c h n o l o e t d i s i t i v e r i - c i g h l n t e c d e v o f p o m a l v h e h c a t i o b e e n a l t h The results assume f o r d l . T v e r i - h a s g w e w o r n g t h a t i s i n s t r i a l w o r k i w o r k s u r p r which d u a f a � ∗ � � � �

  19. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Upper Bounds How to bound the running time of algorithms with wqo-based termination proofs? wqos ubiquitous in infinite-state verification Information and Computation 160 , 109 � 127 (2000) doi:10.1006 � inco.1999.2843, available online at http: �� www.idealibrary.com on /tcs /loca te r.com vie nce 256 (2001) 63–92 www.e lse re ! r Scie rywhe A l g l Com pute o r ve i t h ore tica s e m i The nsition syste m c A n a W e l y l l s i s d tra . Pdt Wilson, Q u o f e n ∗ a s P r ll-structure ri cation, ENS de Cachan & CNRS UMR 8643, 61 av e b e l i - o o g h n o r d e r a m h . S c r e s We , P d D w i n k e l Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden o t h A . F i m a x, France Parosh Aziz Abdulla i n s 1 94235 Cachan Ce de ci cation and Ve Lab. Spe E-mail: parosh � docs.uu.se s f o r s e t m e t s y i s Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science , University of Latvia , Riga , Latvia t e - s t a t h a t i n - n i a t t s e Ka s o f e e n s S T S � rlis C 8 era c l a s b e t w h e W e n e r a l e r i n g o f t a l � ns a g - o r d t m e n t a s s i c ) a r e q u a s i e t e r a o f c l S T S s w e l - l e n s i v m p l e s v e d . E-mail: karlis � cclu.lv s ( W o f a n e x t e x a r s e e r r a c t s t e m e n c e d e a m a n y i g h s t A b s t o n s y e x s i t p r o v i l o w A l l r Department of Computer Systems , Uppsala University , P . O . Box 325 , 751 05 Uppsala , Sweden a n s t i i n t h e w e n s a l B . V . e d r t e l y o r t i c l e , n i t i o e n c e u c t u r t l s r h i s a d e d e - r S c i Bengt Jonsson e l l - s t r r e s u . I n t p r o v e s v i e W b l i i t y t i o n s u r i m 0 1 E l e c i d a t r a n s i s . O � c 2 0 i c h d h t e r e u s l t S s . w h w t i h n e w W S T a t i b e l v e r a l s o f E-mail: bengt � docs.uu.se c o m p w s e a n c e e r i n g d s h o s n i s t i - o r d a a n e e n a - q u a s i d e b e s W e l l m s t o a t i o n ; s y s t e e i r - c s ; V and y s t m e i t e s n I - n Department of Information Management , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan o d r s : K e y w Yih-Kuen Tsay h e o - o t h t o r b E-mail: tsay � im.ntu.edu.tw e l d f e s i n v e - v a n c i o n m s a c i t e a d o d u c t s y s t e v e r y s s i v m t h e I n t r a t e s a m p r e f r o Over the past few years increasing research effort has been directed 1 . t e - t s m s i c e i i o n s n n i s y s t e y s i n p i l c a t [ 1 6 ] n o f i a n d c i a l l c a p t e m s towards the automatic verification of infinite-state systems. This paper is a t o i m s e s p e a l i s t i e s y s e r i c o g r a e n s t , a l r e - n i t t e m s concerned with identifying general mathematical structures which 1 . V o f p r o p m e v e r h f o r r s y s 1 . i o n e v e l e i n s r o a c e d o f - c a t c a l d a s i b l a p p e o l p serve as sufficient conditions for achieving decidability. v e r i a r c t i d f e k i n g d e v r m a l n d p r o v e c h e c l b e s F o c h a g y p o d e - l d w e l y e a r decidability results for a class of systems s e a r h n o l o u l m c o u l c e n t 11/20 a l r e t e c c e s s f o g y n e r e which consist of a finite control r e t i c a t o i n y s u c h n o l o e t d i s i t i v e r i - c i g h l n t e c d e v o f p o m a l v h e h c a t i o b e e n a l t h The results assume f o r d l . T v e r i - h a s g w e w o r n g t h a t i s i n s t r i a l w o r k i w o r k s u r p r which d u a f a � ∗ � � � �

  20. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Bad Sequences Over a qo ( X , � ) ◮ x 0 , x 1 ,... is bad if ∀ i < j . x i � x j ◮ ( X , � ) wqo i ff all bad sequences are finite ◮ but can be of arbitrary length 12/20

  21. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Bad Sequences Over a qo ( X , � ) ◮ x 0 , x 1 ,... is bad if ∀ i < j . x i � x j ◮ ( X , � ) wqo i ff all bad sequences are finite ◮ but can be of arbitrary length Example (over N 2 ) 12/20

  22. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Bad Sequences Over a qo ( X , � ) ◮ x 0 , x 1 ,... is bad if ∀ i < j . x i � x j ◮ ( X , � ) wqo i ff all bad sequences are finite ◮ but can be of arbitrary length Example (over N 2 ) 12/20

  23. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Controlled Bad Sequences Over a qo ( X , � ) with norm � · � ◮ x 0 , x 1 ,... is bad if ∀ i < j . x i � x j ◮ ( X , � ) wqo i ff all bad sequences are finite g 0 ( 2 ) = 2 ◮ controlled by g : N → N monotone and inflationary and n 0 ∈ N if ∀ i . � x i � � g i ( n 0 ) [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] Example (over N 2 with n 0 = 2 and g ( n ) = n + 1 ) 12/20

  24. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Controlled Bad Sequences Over a qo ( X , � ) with norm � · � ◮ x 0 , x 1 ,... is bad if ∀ i < j . x i � x j ◮ ( X , � ) wqo i ff all bad sequences are finite ◮ controlled by g : N → N monotone and inflationary and n 0 ∈ N if ∀ i . � x i � � g i ( n 0 ) [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] Proposition Over ( X , � ) , assuming ∀ n { x ∈ X | � x � � n } finite, ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequences have a maximal length, noted L g , X ( n 0 ) . 12/20

  25. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Controlled Bad Sequences Proposition Over a wqo ( X , � ) , assuming { x ∈ X | � x � � n } to be finite ∀ n , ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequences have a maximal length, noted L g , X ( n 0 ) . Objective Provide upper bounds for L g , X ( n 0 ) . 12/20

  26. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,... over a wqo ( X , � ) : norms � xi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 x 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � � � g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 x 1 � � indices i 13/20

  27. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,... over a wqo ( X , � ) : norms � xi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 x 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) over the su ffi x x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,..., ∀ i > 0, g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � x 0 � x i � � g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 x 1 � � indices i 13/20

  28. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,... over a wqo ( X , � ) : norms � xi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 x 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) over the su ffi x x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,..., ∀ i > 0, g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � � � def x i ∈ X \ ↑ x 0 = { x ∈ X | x 0 � x } g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 x 1 � � indices i 13/20

  29. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,... over a wqo ( X , � ) : norms � xi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 x 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) over the su ffi x x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,..., ∀ i > 0, g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � � � def x i ∈ X \ ↑ x 0 = { x ∈ X | x 0 � x } g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 � x i � � g i − 1 ( g ( n 0 )) x 1 � � indices i 13/20

  30. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,... over a wqo ( X , � ) : norms � xi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 x 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) over the su ffi x x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,..., ∀ i > 0, g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � � � def x i ∈ X \ ↑ x 0 = { x ∈ X | x 0 � x } g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 � x i � � g i − 1 ( g ( n 0 )) x 1 � � indices i L g , X ( n 0 ) = max 1 + L g , X \ ↑ x 0 ( g ( n 0 )) x 0 ∈ X , � x 0 � � n 0 13/20

  31. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Descent Equation ( g , n 0 ) -controlled bad sequence α 0 , α 1 , α 2 , α 3 ,... over an ordinal α : norms � αi � g 2 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 3 ( n 0 ) α 3 α 2 g 1 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 2 ( n 0 ) over the su ffi x α 1 , α 2 , α 3 ,..., ∀ i > 0, g 0 ( g ( n 0 )) = g 1 ( n 0 ) � � � � def α i ∈ α 0 = { β ∈ α | β � � α 0 } g 0 ( n 0 ) α 0 � α i � � g i − 1 ( g ( n 0 )) α 1 � � indices i L g , α ( n 0 ) = max 1 + L g , α 0 ( g ( n 0 )) α 0 ∈ α , � α 0 � � n 0 13/20

  32. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] ◮ Cantor Normal Form for ordinals α < ε 0 : α = ω α 1 · c 1 + ··· + ω α k · c k α > α 1 > ··· > α k 0 < c 1 ,..., c k < ω ◮ Norm of ordinals α < ε 0 : “maximal constant” def � α � = max 1 � i � k ( max ( || α i || , c i )) e.g. � ω ω 2 � = 2, � ω ω · 5 + ω 2 · 3 � = 5 14/20

  33. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] ◮ Cantor Normal Form for ordinals α < ε 0 : α = ω α 1 · c 1 + ··· + ω α k · c k α > α 1 > ··· > α k 0 < c 1 ,..., c k < ω ◮ Norm of ordinals α < ε 0 : “maximal constant” def � α � = max 1 � i � k ( max ( || α i || , c i )) e.g. � ω ω 2 � = 2, � ω ω · 5 + ω 2 · 3 � = 5 14/20

  34. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Recall the descent equation: L g , α ( n 0 ) = max 1 + L g , α 0 ( g ( n 0 )) α 0 ∈ α , � α 0 � � n 0 Proposition ( variant of [Buchholtz, Cicho´ n & Weiermann’94]) Let 0 < α < ε 0 and � α � � n 0 . Then L g ,0 ( n 0 ) = 0 L g , α ( n 0 ) = 1 + L g , P n 0 ( α ) ( g ( n 0 )) P x ( α ) denotes the predecessor at x of α > 0: “maximal ordinal β < α s.t. � β � � x ” 14/20

  35. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Recall the descent equation: L g , α ( n 0 ) = max 1 + L g , α 0 ( g ( n 0 )) α 0 ∈ α , � α 0 � � n 0 Proposition ( variant of [Buchholtz, Cicho´ n & Weiermann’94]) Let 0 < α < ε 0 and � α � � n 0 . Then L g ,0 ( n 0 ) = 0 L g , α ( n 0 ) = 1 + L g , P n 0 ( α ) ( g ( n 0 )) P x ( α ) denotes the predecessor at x of α > 0: “maximal ordinal β < α s.t. � β � � x ” 14/20

  36. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Proposition ( variant of [Buchholtz, Cicho´ n & Weiermann’94]) Let 0 < α < ε 0 and � α � � n 0 . Then L g ,0 ( n 0 ) = 0 L g , α ( n 0 ) = 1 + L g , P n 0 ( α ) ( g ( n 0 )) P x ( α ) denotes the predecessor at x of α > 0: “maximal ordinal β < α s.t. � β � � x ” Example P 3 ( ω 2 ) = ω · 3 + 3 P 3 ( ω ω 2 ) = ω ω · 3 + 3 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + 2 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 3 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 3 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 2 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 2 · 3 + ω ω + 3 · 3 + ω ω + 2 · 3 + ω ω + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + ω 3 · 3 + ω 2 · 3 + ω · 3 + 3 14/20

  37. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Proposition ( variant of [Buchholtz, Cicho´ n & Weiermann’94]) Let 0 < α < ε 0 and � α � � n 0 . Then L g ,0 ( n 0 ) = 0 L g , α ( n 0 ) = 1 + L g , P n 0 ( α ) ( g ( n 0 )) P x ( α ) denotes the predecessor at x of α > 0: “maximal ordinal β < α s.t. � β � � x ” Example P 3 ( ω 2 ) = ω · 3 + 3 P 3 ( ω ω 2 ) = ω ω · 3 + 3 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + 2 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 3 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 3 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 2 · 3 + ω ω · 2 + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 2 · 3 + ω ω + 3 · 3 + ω ω + 2 · 3 + ω ω + 1 · 3 + ω ω · 3 + ω 3 · 3 + ω 2 · 3 + ω · 3 + 3 14/20

  38. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Proposition ( variant of [Buchholtz, Cicho´ n & Weiermann’94]) Let 0 < α < ε 0 and � α � � n 0 . Then L g ,0 ( n 0 ) = 0 L g , α ( n 0 ) = 1 + L g , P n 0 ( α ) ( g ( n 0 )) This function was already known in the literature! Definition ( Cicho´ n Hierarchy [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] ) For g : N → N , define ( g α : N → N ) α by def def g 0 ( x ) = 0 g α ( x ) = 1 + g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) for α > 0 14/20

  39. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Case of Ordinals [S.’14] Length Function Theorem (for Ordinals) Let α < ε 0 and n 0 � � α � . Then the longest ( g , n 0 ) -controlled descending sequence over α is of length L g , α ( n 0 ) = g α ( n 0 ) 14/20

  40. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Relating Norm and Length [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] Recall the definition of the Cicho´ n Hierarchy: def def g 0 ( x ) = 0 g α ( x ) = 1 + g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) for α > 0 Definition ( Hardy Hierarchy) For g : N → N , define ( g α : N → N ) α by g 0 ( x ) = g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) for α > 0 def g α ( x ) def = x 15/20

  41. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Relating Norm and Length [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] def def g 0 ( x ) = 0 g α ( x ) = 1 + g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) for α > 0 g 0 ( x ) def g α ( x ) = g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) def = x for α > 0 norms � xi � g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 norm: Hardy function gα ( n 0 ) x 2 g 2 ( n 0 ) g α ( x ) = g g α ( x ) ( x ) g 1 ( n 0 ) g α ( x ) � g α ( x ) + x g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 x 1 indices i length: Cicho´ n function gα ( n 0 ) 15/20

  42. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Relating Norm and Length [Cicho´ n & Tahhan Bittar’98] def def g 0 ( x ) = 0 g α ( x ) = 1 + g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) for α > 0 g 0 ( x ) def g α ( x ) = g P x ( α ) ( g ( x )) def = x for α > 0 norms � xi � g 3 ( n 0 ) x 3 norm: Hardy function gα ( n 0 ) x 2 g 2 ( n 0 ) g α ( x ) = g g α ( x ) ( x ) g 1 ( n 0 ) g α ( x ) � g α ( x ) + x g 0 ( n 0 ) x 0 x 1 indices i length: Cicho´ n function gα ( n 0 ) 15/20

  43. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Length of Decomposition Branches α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . 16/20

  44. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Length of Decomposition Branches α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . Corollary Let n 0 � 2 and g : N → N be such that the sequence of ordinal ranks computed by the decomposition algorithm is ( g , n 0 ) -controlled. The algorithm runs in SPACE ( g ω ω 2 ( n 0 )) . 16/20

  45. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Length of Decomposition Branches α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . Corollary Let n 0 � 2 and g : N → N be such that the sequence of ordinal ranks computed by the decomposition algorithm is ( g , n 0 ) -controlled. The algorithm runs in SPACE ( g ω ω 2 ( n 0 )) . 16/20

  46. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives The Length of Decomposition Branches α 0 ∨ α 1 ∨ α 2 ∨ . . . Consequence of ( Figueira, Figueira, S. & Schnoebelen’11) = H ω ω ( e ( x )) for H ( x ) def def The control g ( x ) = x + 1 and an elementary function e , and n 0 the size of the reachability instance fit. Thus the decomposition algorithm runs in SPACE (( H ω ω ◦ e ) ω ω 2 ( n ) . 16/20

  47. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Restating the Result “ SPACE (( H ω ω ◦ e ) ω ω 2 ( n ) ” is unreadable! 1. give names ◮ H ω ω is the Ackermann function ◮ H ω ω 2 is the “quadratic Ackermann” function 2. define coarse-grained complexity classes DTIME ( H ω α ( f ( n )) def � FDTIME ( H γ ( n )) def � F <α = = F α γ<ω α f ∈ F <α Consequence of (S.’16, Thm. 4.4) VAS Reachability is in F ω 2 . 17/20

  48. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Restating the Result “ SPACE (( H ω ω ◦ e ) ω ω 2 ( n ) ” is unreadable! 1. give names ◮ H ω ω is the Ackermann function ◮ H ω ω 2 is the “quadratic Ackermann” function 2. define coarse-grained complexity classes DTIME ( H ω α ( f ( n )) def � FDTIME ( H γ ( n )) def � F <α = = F α γ<ω α f ∈ F <α Consequence of (S.’16, Thm. 4.4) VAS Reachability is in F ω 2 . 17/20

  49. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Restating the Result “ SPACE (( H ω ω ◦ e ) ω ω 2 ( n ) ” is unreadable! 1. give names ◮ H ω ω is the Ackermann function ◮ H ω ω 2 is the “quadratic Ackermann” function 2. define coarse-grained complexity classes DTIME ( H ω α ( f ( n )) def � FDTIME ( H γ ( n )) def � F <α = = F α γ<ω α f ∈ F <α Consequence of (S.’16, Thm. 4.4) VAS Reachability is in F ω 2 . 17/20

  50. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Restating the Result “ SPACE (( H ω ω ◦ e ) ω ω 2 ( n ) ” is unreadable! 1. give names ◮ H ω ω is the Ackermann function ◮ H ω ω 2 is the “quadratic Ackermann” function 2. define coarse-grained complexity classes DTIME ( H ω α ( f ( n )) def � FDTIME ( H γ ( n )) def � F <α = = F α γ<ω α f ∈ F <α Consequence of (S.’16, Thm. 4.4) VAS Reachability is in F ω 2 . 17/20

  51. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 18/20

  52. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 � def DTime ( tower ( e ( n ))) F 3 = e elementary 18/20

  53. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 Examples of Tower-Complete Problems: ◮ satisfiability of first-order logic on words [Meyer’75] ◮ β -equivalence of simply typed λ terms [Statman’79] ◮ model-checking higher-order recursion schemes [Ong’06] 18/20

  54. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 � def DTime ( ackermann ( p ( n ))) F ω = p primitive recursive 18/20

  55. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 Examples of Ackermann-Complete Problems: ◮ reachability in lossy Minsky machines [Urquhart’98, Schnoebelen’02] ◮ satisfiability of safety Metric Temporal Logic [Lazi´ c et al.’16] ◮ satisfiability of Vertical XPath [Figueira and Segoufin’17] 18/20

  56. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 18/20

  57. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Complexity Classes Beyond Elementary [S.’16] Multiply Recursive Fast-Growing Complexity F ω Primitive Recursive = Ackermann F 3 = Tower Elementary ExpSpace F ω 2 18/20

  58. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Summary well-quasi-orders (wqo): ◮ proving algorithm termination a toolbox for wqo-based complexity ◮ upper bounds: length function theorems (for ordinals, Dickson’s Lemma, Higman’s Lemma, and combinations) ◮ lower bounds ◮ complexity classes: ( F α ) α this talk: focus on one problem ◮ reachability in vector addition systems in F ω 2 19/20

  59. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Perspectives 1. complexity gap for VAS reachability ◮ ExpSpace -hard [Lipton’76] better lower bounds? (Wojciech’s talk) ◮ decomposition algorithm: at least F ω (Ackermannian) time [Zetzsche’16] 2. reachability in VAS extensions ◮ decidable in VAS with hierarchical zero tests [Reinhardt’08] ◮ what about (J´ erˆ ome’s talk) ◮ branching VAS ◮ unordered data Petri nets ◮ pushdown VAS 20/20

  60. Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives Perspectives 1. complexity gap for VAS reachability ◮ ExpSpace -hard [Lipton’76] better lower bounds? (Wojciech’s talk) ◮ decomposition algorithm: at least F ω (Ackermannian) time [Zetzsche’16] 2. reachability in VAS extensions ◮ decidable in VAS with hierarchical zero tests [Reinhardt’08] ◮ what about (J´ erˆ ome’s talk) ◮ branching VAS ◮ unordered data Petri nets ◮ pushdown VAS 20/20

  61. Demystifying Reachability in Vector Addition Systems [Leroux & S.’15] Ideal Decomposition Theorem The Decomposition Algorithm computes the ideal decomposition of the set of runs from source to target. Upper Bound Theorem Reachability in vector addition systems is in cubic Ackermann. 21/20

  62. Ideals of Well-Quasi-Orders ( X , � ) ◮ Canonical decompositions [Bonnet’75] if D ⊆ X is ↓ -closed, then D = I 1 ∪ ··· ∪ I n for (maximal) ideals I 1 ,..., I n Example (over N 2 ) D = ( { 0,...,2 } × N ) ∪ ( { 0,...,5 } × { 0,...,7 } ) ∪ ( N × { 0,...,4 } ) 22/20

  63. Ideals of Well-Quasi-Orders ( X , � ) ◮ Canonical decompositions [Bonnet’75] if D ⊆ X is ↓ -closed, then D = I 1 ∪ ··· ∪ I n for (maximal) ideals I 1 ,..., I n Example (over N 2 ) D = ( { 0,...,2 } × N ) ∪ ( { 0,...,5 } × { 0,...,7 } ) ∪ ( N × { 0,...,4 } ) 22/20

  64. Ideals of Well-Quasi-Orders ( X , � ) ◮ Canonical decompositions [Bonnet’75] if D ⊆ X is ↓ -closed, then D = I 1 ∪ ··· ∪ I n for (maximal) ideals I 1 ,..., I n ◮ E ff ective representations [Goubault-Larrecq et al.’17] Example (over N 2 ) D = � ( 2, ∞ ) � ∪ � ( 5,7 ) � ∪ � ( ∞ ,4 ) � 22/20

  65. Decomposition Theorem Well-Quasi-Order on Runs combination of Dickson’s and Higman’s lemmata Syntax Semantics I 0 I 2 I 3 I 1 I 4 � � ↓ Runs � � 23/20

  66. Decomposition Theorem Well-Quasi-Order on Runs combination of Dickson’s and Higman’s lemmata Syntax Semantics I 0 I 2 I 3 I 1 I 4 � � ↓ Runs � � 23/20

  67. Decomposition Theorem Well-Quasi-Order on Runs combination of Dickson’s and Higman’s lemmata Syntax Semantics I 0 I 2 I 3 I 1 I 4 � � ↓ Runs � � 23/20

  68. Decomposition Theorem Well-Quasi-Order on Runs combination of Dickson’s and Higman’s lemmata Syntax Semantics I 0 I 2 I 3 I 1 I 4 � � ↓ Runs � � 23/20

Recommend

On the Complexity of VAS Reachability Sylvain Schmitz based on joint works with D. Figueira, S.

On the Complexity of VAS Reachability Sylvain Schmitz based on joint works with D. Figueira, S.

Vector Addition Systems Decomposition Algorithm Upper Bounds Complexity Perspectives On the Complexity of VAS Reachability Sylvain Schmitz based on joint works with D. Figueira, S. Figueira, J. Leroux, and Ph. Schnoebelen LSV, ENS

1.53k views • 127 slides
Dynamic Complexity of the Dyck Reachability Patricia Bouyer-Decitre &amp; Vincent Jug CNRS, LSV

Dynamic Complexity of the Dyck Reachability Patricia Bouyer-Decitre &amp; Vincent Jug CNRS, LSV

Dynamic Complexity of the Dyck Reachability Patricia Bouyer-Decitre &amp; Vincent Jug CNRS, LSV &amp; ENS Paris-Saclay 25/04/2017 P. Bouyer-Decitre &amp; V. Jug Dynamic Complexity of the Dyck Reachability Contents Dynamic Complexity of

905 views • 87 slides
t s Computability and Complexity Nabil Mustafa Nondeterministic Space Complexity Nabil Mustafa

t s Computability and Complexity Nabil Mustafa Nondeterministic Space Complexity Nabil Mustafa

The Problem REACHABILITY REACHABILITY Input: A directed graph G = ( V , E ), | V | = n , | E | = m , and two vertices s , t V Nondeterministic Space Complexity Question: Is there a directed path from s to t in G ? Nabil Mustafa t s

246 views • 6 slides
On The Complexity of Bounded Time Reachability for Piecewise Affine Systems H. Bazille 3 O.

On The Complexity of Bounded Time Reachability for Piecewise Affine Systems H. Bazille 3 O.

On The Complexity of Bounded Time Reachability for Piecewise Affine Systems H. Bazille 3 O. Bournez 1 W. Gomaa 2 , 4 A. Pouly 1 1 cole Polytechnique, LIX, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France 2 Egypt Japan University of Science and Technology, CSE,

1.22k views • 102 slides
Semantic guidance for unbounded symbolic reachability Martin Suda Max Planck Institute fr

Semantic guidance for unbounded symbolic reachability Martin Suda Max Planck Institute fr

Semantic guidance for unbounded symbolic reachability Martin Suda Max Planck Institute fr Informatik VTSA 2012 b b b b b b b b b b b b Symbolic reachability The algorithm Conclusion Transition system ? G I Reachability Does

601 views • 28 slides
KReach: A Tool for Reachability in Petri Nets Alex Dixon Ranko Lazi The Reachability Problem

KReach: A Tool for Reachability in Petri Nets Alex Dixon Ranko Lazi The Reachability Problem

KReach: A Tool for Reachability in Petri Nets Alex Dixon Ranko Lazi The Reachability Problem INPUT: Petri net N = ( P, T ) Initial marking Target marking OUTPUT: Reachable if in

131 views • 10 slides
Internet The value of Internet is in global reachability Reachability comes from

Internet The value of Internet is in global reachability Reachability comes from

Lic.(Tech.) Marko Luoma (1/28) Lic.(Tech.) Marko Luoma (2/28) Internet The value of Internet is in global reachability Reachability comes from co-operative peering efforts Customer peering (Customer-Provider-Customer relationship)

336 views • 7 slides
Reachability Analysis for Reachability Analysis for Sequential Circuits Sequential Circuits

Reachability Analysis for Reachability Analysis for Sequential Circuits Sequential Circuits

Reachability Analysis for Reachability Analysis for Sequential Circuits Sequential Circuits Supratik Chakraborty IIT Bombay 1 State of a System State of a System System state Information about system sufficient to determine future

525 views • 23 slides
Using Reachability Properties of Logic Program for Revising Biological Models Xinwei Chai, Tony

Using Reachability Properties of Logic Program for Revising Biological Models Xinwei Chai, Tony

Modeling framework Reachability analysis Model Revision Using Reachability Properties of Logic Program for Revising Biological Models Xinwei Chai, Tony Ribeiro , Morgan Magnin, Olivier Roux, Katsumi Inoue Laboratoire des Sciences du Num

746 views • 36 slides
Complexity of DLs RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Complexity of DLs: Overview of the Complexity of

Complexity of DLs RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Complexity of DLs: Overview of the Complexity of

Complexity of DLs RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Complexity of DLs: Overview of the Complexity of Concept Consistency P (co-)NP PSpace ExpTime NExpTime ALC reg ALUN (NP) ALCN add regular roles without , (wrt acyc. TBoxes) ALC u only A ALN

745 views • 16 slides
A Constructor-Based Reachability Logic for Rewrite Theories Stephen Skeirik, Andrei Stefanescu,

A Constructor-Based Reachability Logic for Rewrite Theories Stephen Skeirik, Andrei Stefanescu,

A Constructor-Based Reachability Logic for Rewrite Theories Stephen Skeirik, Andrei Stefanescu, Jose Meseguer October 10th, 2017 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Reachability Logic Semantics 3 The Invariant Paradox 4 Inference System 5 Implementation

544 views • 29 slides
Tools for Hybrid Systems Reachability Goran Frehse Universite Grenoble 1, Verimag - with work

Tools for Hybrid Systems Reachability Goran Frehse Universite Grenoble 1, Verimag - with work

Tools for Hybrid Systems Reachability Goran Frehse Universite Grenoble 1, Verimag - with work from Thao Dang, Antoine Girard and Colas Le Guernic - QMC10, Copenhague, March 5, 2010 1 Outline I. Hybrid Automata and Reachability II. Linear

840 views • 63 slides
Reachability Problems on (Partially Lossy) Queue Automata 13 th International Conference on

Reachability Problems on (Partially Lossy) Queue Automata 13 th International Conference on

Reachability Problems on (Partially Lossy) Queue Automata 13 th International Conference on Reachability Problems, Brussels Chris K ocher Automata and Logics Group Technische Universit at Ilmenau September 11, 2019 1 Queue Automata

499 views • 28 slides
On the input energy for state reachability of linear systems with packet losses A. Sanand Dilip,

On the input energy for state reachability of linear systems with packet losses A. Sanand Dilip,

On the input energy for state reachability of linear systems with packet losses A. Sanand Dilip, Nikolaos Athanasopoulos, Raphal Jungers ICTEAM, Mathematical Engineering, UC Louvain, Belgium Reachability Problems 2017, September 8, 2017 A.

876 views • 58 slides
Complexity Bounds for Ordinal-Based Termination Sylvain Schmitz with numerous colleagues: Sergio

Complexity Bounds for Ordinal-Based Termination Sylvain Schmitz with numerous colleagues: Sergio

Termination Proofs Ordinal Ranking Length Functions Subrecursive Functions VAS Reachability Complexity Bounds for Ordinal-Based Termination Sylvain Schmitz with numerous colleagues: Sergio Abriola, Diego Figueira, Santiago Figueira, J

928 views • 64 slides
Reachability Analysis of Generalized Polygonal Hybrid Systems (GSPDIs) Gerardo Schneider

Reachability Analysis of Generalized Polygonal Hybrid Systems (GSPDIs) Gerardo Schneider

Reachability Analysis of Generalized Polygonal Hybrid Systems (GSPDIs) Gerardo Schneider Department of Informatics University of Oslo SAC-SV08 March 1620, 2008 - Fortaleza university-logo Gerardo Schneider () Reachability Analysis of

650 views • 37 slides
Realization Problems on Reachability Sequences COCOON 2020 Matthew Dippel, Ravi Sundaram, Akshar

Realization Problems on Reachability Sequences COCOON 2020 Matthew Dippel, Ravi Sundaram, Akshar

Realization Problems on Reachability Sequences COCOON 2020 Matthew Dippel, Ravi Sundaram, Akshar Varma Northeastern University, Boston August 30, 2020 1 / 11 Overview 1 The Reachability Realization Problem 2 Our Results 3 Approximation

681 views • 19 slides
IN 5210 Complexity Theory Complexity Complexity: Socio-technical (Internet, globalization)

IN 5210 Complexity Theory Complexity Complexity: Socio-technical (Internet, globalization)

IN 5210 Complexity Theory Complexity Complexity: Socio-technical (Internet, globalization) Complexity (-ies) = Number of types of components*number of types of links*speed of change Key issues: emergence, side-effects (=history),

816 views • 32 slides
Basics of Complexity Complexity = resources time space ink gates energy

Basics of Complexity Complexity = resources time space ink gates energy

Basics of Complexity Complexity = resources time space ink gates energy Complexity is a function Complexity = f (input size) Value depends on: problem encoding adj. list vs. adj matrix model of

326 views • 17 slides
Algorithmic Complexity Algorithmic Complexity &quot;Algorithmic Complexity&quot;, also called

Algorithmic Complexity Algorithmic Complexity &quot;Algorithmic Complexity&quot;, also called

Algorithmic Complexity Algorithmic Complexity &quot;Algorithmic Complexity&quot;, also called &quot;Running Time&quot; or &quot;Order of Growth&quot;, refers to the number of steps a program takes as a function of the size of its inputs. In

519 views • 28 slides
PAPER DISCUSSION: Adding Regular Expressions to Graph Reachability and Pattern Queries Xilun Wu

PAPER DISCUSSION: Adding Regular Expressions to Graph Reachability and Pattern Queries Xilun Wu

PAPER DISCUSSION: Adding Regular Expressions to Graph Reachability and Pattern Queries Xilun Wu Purdue University Contribution Describe reachability queries and graph pattern queries in a subset of Regular Expression . (Tractable) Define

593 views • 28 slides
Development By The Numbers We Are Going To Measure Complexity Why Should We Care About

Development By The Numbers We Are Going To Measure Complexity Why Should We Care About

Development By The Numbers We Are Going To Measure Complexity Why Should We Care About Complexity? &quot;The Central Enemy Of Reliability is Complexity&quot; - Geer et al. Complexity And Quality Are Strongly Related Basic Metrics

1.33k views • 132 slides
Reachability achability Analysis alysis with th Consid nsideration eration of f Th

Reachability achability Analysis alysis with th Consid nsideration eration of f Th

SRAM M Dynami namic c Sta tability bility Verification ification by Reachability achability Analysis alysis with th Consid nsideration eration of f Th Threshold eshold Voltage ltage Variatio riation Yang Song 1 , Hao Yu* 2 , Sai

352 views • 22 slides
Complexity Classes CSC 540 Christopher Siu 1 / 15 P Defjnition A complexity class is a set of

Complexity Classes CSC 540 Christopher Siu 1 / 15 P Defjnition A complexity class is a set of

Complexity Classes CSC 540 Christopher Siu 1 / 15 P Defjnition A complexity class is a set of languages decidable by a Turing machine within similar resource bounds. Practically, a complexity class is a set of problems of similar

414 views • 15 slides

More recommend