proof techniques for nondeterministic and probabilistic
play

Proof techniques for Nondeterministic and Probabilistic Processes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 02, 2024 •332 likes •1.49k views

Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Proof techniques for Nondeterministic and Probabilistic Processes Matthew Hennessy Trinity College Dublin (joint work with Yuxin Deng, Rob van Glabbeek, Carroll Morgan, Chenyi Zhang)

  1. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation d . ( a 2 ⊕ b ) ⊳ S d . (( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b )) because 1 1 1 a 2 ⊕ b lift( ⊳ S ) ( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b ) 1 1 1 1 2 · a + 1 4 · a + 1 1 2 · ( a + b ) + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 4 · b Because: 1 2 · a + 1 ◮ a ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) 1 2 · b + 1 ◮ b ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) ◮ 1 2 · a + 1 1 2 · ( 1 2 · a + 1 2 · ( a + b )) + 1 2 · ( 1 2 · b + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 2 · ( a + b )) Moral: ◮ ⊳ S must have type S × D ( S ) sfi ◮ NOT type S × S 13/38

  2. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation d . ( a 2 ⊕ b ) ⊳ S d . (( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b )) because 1 1 1 a 2 ⊕ b lift( ⊳ S ) ( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b ) 1 1 1 1 2 · a + 1 4 · a + 1 1 2 · ( a + b ) + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 4 · b Because: 1 2 · a + 1 ◮ a ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) 1 2 · b + 1 ◮ b ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) ◮ 1 2 · a + 1 1 2 · ( 1 2 · a + 1 2 · ( a + b )) + 1 2 · ( 1 2 · b + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 2 · ( a + b )) Moral: ◮ ⊳ S must have type S × D ( S ) sfi ◮ NOT type S × S 13/38

  3. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation d . ( a 2 ⊕ b ) ⊳ S d . (( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b )) because 1 1 1 a 2 ⊕ b lift( ⊳ S ) ( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b ) 1 1 1 1 2 · a + 1 4 · a + 1 1 2 · ( a + b ) + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 4 · b Because: 1 2 · a + 1 ◮ a ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) 1 2 · b + 1 ◮ b ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) ◮ 1 2 · a + 1 1 2 · ( 1 2 · a + 1 2 · ( a + b )) + 1 2 · ( 1 2 · b + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 2 · ( a + b )) Moral: ◮ ⊳ S must have type S × D ( S ) sfi ◮ NOT type S × S 13/38

  4. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation d . ( a 2 ⊕ b ) ⊳ S d . (( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b )) because 1 1 1 a 2 ⊕ b lift( ⊳ S ) ( a 2 ⊕ b ) 2 ⊕ ( a + b ) 1 1 1 1 2 · a + 1 4 · a + 1 1 2 · ( a + b ) + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 4 · b Because: 1 2 · a + 1 ◮ a ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) 1 2 · b + 1 ◮ b ⊳ S 2 · ( a + b ) ◮ 1 2 · a + 1 1 2 · ( 1 2 · a + 1 2 · ( a + b )) + 1 2 · ( 1 2 · b + 1 2 · b lift( ⊳ S ) 2 · ( a + b )) Moral: ◮ ⊳ S must have type S × D ( S ) sfi ◮ NOT type S × S 13/38

  5. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Second problem a . B a B a . b � ⊳ S a . B τ τ because a . B � a 3 1 = ⇒ b because 4 4 → ∗ b → ∗ � a a . B − τ − → τ − s 1 s 2 b Moral: weak internal actions must include limiting behaviour B reaches state s 2 with probability 1 sfi 14/38

  6. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Second problem a . B a B a . b � ⊳ S a . B τ τ because a . B � a 3 1 = ⇒ b because 4 4 → ∗ b → ∗ � a a . B − τ − → τ − s 1 s 2 b Moral: weak internal actions must include limiting behaviour B reaches state s 2 with probability 1 sfi 14/38

  7. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Second problem a . B a B a . b � ⊳ S a . B τ τ because a . B � a 3 1 = ⇒ b because 4 4 → ∗ b → ∗ � a a . B − τ − → τ − s 1 s 2 b Moral: weak internal actions must include limiting behaviour B reaches state s 2 with probability 1 sfi 14/38

  8. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Second problem a . B a B a . b � ⊳ S a . B τ τ because a . B � a 3 1 = ⇒ b because 4 4 → ∗ b → ∗ � a a . B − τ − → τ − s 1 s 2 b Moral: weak internal actions must include limiting behaviour B reaches state s 2 with probability 1 sfi 14/38

  9. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak internal actions in a pLTS ∆ = ⇒ Θ Idea: internal computation is a partial execution ∆ go ∆ stay ∆ = 0 + 0 ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → 0 + 0 1 ∆ stay : any subdistribution . . . . . . ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → ( k +1) + k ( k +1) . . . . . . ∆ go : any subdistribution . . . . . . which can perform τ k =0 ∆ stay Θ = � ∞ Total: k Note: use of subdistributions sfi 15/38

  10. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak internal actions in a pLTS ∆ = ⇒ Θ Idea: internal computation is a partial execution ∆ go ∆ stay ∆ = 0 + 0 ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → 0 + 0 1 ∆ stay : any subdistribution . . . . . . ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → ( k +1) + k ( k +1) . . . . . . ∆ go : any subdistribution . . . . . . which can perform τ k =0 ∆ stay Θ = � ∞ Total: k Note: use of subdistributions sfi 15/38

  11. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak internal actions in a pLTS ∆ = ⇒ Θ Idea: internal computation is a partial execution ∆ go ∆ stay ∆ = 0 + 0 ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → 0 + 0 1 ∆ stay : any subdistribution . . . . . . ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → ( k +1) + k ( k +1) . . . . . . ∆ go : any subdistribution . . . . . . which can perform τ k =0 ∆ stay Θ = � ∞ Total: k Note: use of subdistributions sfi 15/38

  12. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak internal actions in a pLTS ∆ = ⇒ Θ Idea: internal computation is a partial execution ∆ go ∆ stay ∆ = 0 + 0 ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → 0 + 0 1 ∆ stay : any subdistribution . . . . . . ∆ go ∆ go ∆ stay − τ → ( k +1) + k ( k +1) . . . . . . ∆ go : any subdistribution . . . . . . which can perform τ k =0 ∆ stay Θ = � ∞ Total: k Note: use of subdistributions sfi 15/38

  13. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example a . B a go stay B B = B + empDist 3 1 B − → τ 4 · s 1 + 4 · s 2 3 3 τ 4 · s 2 − → τ 4 · B + empDist τ 4 ) 2 · s 1 + 3 ( 3 ( 3 4 ) 1 4 · B − → τ 4 · s 2 3 1 . . . . . . 4 4 ( 3 4 ) k · B ( 3 4 ) ( k +1) · B + ( 3 4 ) k 1 − → τ 4 · s 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . s 1 s 2 k =0 ( 3 4 ) k 1 Total: s 2 = P ∞ 4 · s 2 b B = ⇒ s 2 sfi 16/38

  14. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example a . B a go stay B B = B + empDist 3 1 B − → τ 4 · s 1 + 4 · s 2 3 3 τ 4 · s 2 − → τ 4 · B + empDist τ 4 ) 2 · s 1 + 3 ( 3 ( 3 4 ) 1 4 · B − → τ 4 · s 2 3 1 . . . . . . 4 4 ( 3 4 ) k · B ( 3 4 ) ( k +1) · B + ( 3 4 ) k 1 − → τ 4 · s 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . s 1 s 2 k =0 ( 3 4 ) k 1 Total: s 2 = P ∞ 4 · s 2 b B = ⇒ s 2 sfi 16/38

  15. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The empty (sub)Distribution: empDist A feature: empDist − µ → empDist for every action µ Consequence: ◮ ∆ − → Θ implies ∆ = τ ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ − → τ τ − → Θ implies ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ . . . Sanity check: → ∗ Θ implies ∆ = ∆ − τ ⇒ Θ sfi 17/38

  16. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The empty (sub)Distribution: empDist A feature: empDist − µ → empDist for every action µ Consequence: ◮ ∆ − → Θ implies ∆ = τ ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ − → τ τ − → Θ implies ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ . . . Sanity check: → ∗ Θ implies ∆ = ∆ − τ ⇒ Θ sfi 17/38

  17. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The empty (sub)Distribution: empDist A feature: empDist − µ → empDist for every action µ Consequence: ◮ ∆ − → Θ implies ∆ = τ ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ − → τ τ − → Θ implies ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ . . . Sanity check: → ∗ Θ implies ∆ = ∆ − τ ⇒ Θ sfi 17/38

  18. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The empty (sub)Distribution: empDist A feature: empDist − µ → empDist for every action µ Consequence: ◮ ∆ − → Θ implies ∆ = τ ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ − → τ τ − → Θ implies ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ . . . Sanity check: → ∗ Θ implies ∆ = ∆ − τ ⇒ Θ sfi 17/38

  19. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The empty (sub)Distribution: empDist A feature: empDist − µ → empDist for every action µ Consequence: ◮ ∆ − → Θ implies ∆ = τ ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ − → τ τ − → Θ implies ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ . . . Sanity check: → ∗ Θ implies ∆ = ∆ − τ ⇒ Θ sfi 17/38

  20. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Lost in divergence s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 τ τ τ τ τ 1 1 1 1 1 22 32 42 52 62 a a a a a Total probability of reaching a from s 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 4 + 12 + 24 + 40 . . . . . . = 2 ⇒ 1 s 2 = 2 · a 1 Remainder of mass 2 is lost in divergence sfi 18/38

  21. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Lost in divergence s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 τ τ τ τ τ 1 1 1 1 1 22 32 42 52 62 a a a a a Total probability of reaching a from s 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 4 + 12 + 24 + 40 . . . . . . = 2 ⇒ 1 s 2 = 2 · a 1 Remainder of mass 2 is lost in divergence sfi 18/38

  22. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Lost in divergence s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 τ τ τ τ τ 1 1 1 1 1 22 32 42 52 62 a a a a a Total probability of reaching a from s 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 4 + 12 + 24 + 40 . . . . . . = 2 ⇒ 1 s 2 = 2 · a 1 Remainder of mass 2 is lost in divergence sfi 18/38

  23. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Lost in divergence s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 τ τ τ τ τ 1 1 1 1 1 22 32 42 52 62 a a a a a Total probability of reaching a from s 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 4 + 12 + 24 + 40 . . . . . . = 2 ⇒ 1 s 2 = 2 · a 1 Remainder of mass 2 is lost in divergence sfi 18/38

  24. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Lost in divergence s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 τ τ τ τ τ 1 1 1 1 1 22 32 42 52 62 a a a a a Total probability of reaching a from s 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 4 + 12 + 24 + 40 . . . . . . = 2 ⇒ 1 s 2 = 2 · a 1 Remainder of mass 2 is lost in divergence sfi 18/38

  25. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations in a pLTS finally Largest relation ⊳ S ⊆ S × D ( S ) satisfying: s Θ s Θ ⊳ S ⊳ S µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ ∆ lift( ⊳ S ) a a ◮ Θ ⇒ Θ ′ : now means Θ = = ⇒ Θ 1 − → Θ 2 = ⇒ Θ ◮ Θ τ ⇒ Θ ′ : now means Θ = ⇒ Θ ′ = sfi 19/38

  26. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations in a pLTS finally Largest relation ⊳ S ⊆ S × D ( S ) satisfying: s Θ s Θ ⊳ S ⊳ S µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ ∆ lift( ⊳ S ) a a ◮ Θ ⇒ Θ ′ : now means Θ = = ⇒ Θ 1 − → Θ 2 = ⇒ Θ ◮ Θ τ ⇒ Θ ′ : now means Θ = ⇒ Θ ′ = sfi 19/38

  27. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation a . B a B τ a . b ⊳ S a . B τ 3 1 a 4 4 because a . B = ⇒ b s 1 s 2 b Also: a . B ⊳ S a . b sfi 20/38

  28. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Example simulation a . B a B τ a . b ⊳ S a . B τ 3 1 a 4 4 because a . B = ⇒ b s 1 s 2 b Also: a . B ⊳ S a . b sfi 20/38

  29. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and testing Soundness: s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊑ pmay Θ proof is straightforward Completeness: In a finitary pLTS s ⊑ pmay Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ difficult proof sfi 21/38

  30. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and testing Soundness: s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊑ pmay Θ proof is straightforward Completeness: In a finitary pLTS s ⊑ pmay Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ difficult proof sfi 21/38

  31. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and testing Soundness: s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊑ pmay Θ proof is straightforward Completeness: In a finitary pLTS s ⊑ pmay Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ difficult proof sfi 21/38

  32. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak transfer property: WTP R satisfies the weak transfer property if s R t s R t µ µ µ implies ∆ ∆ lift( R ) Θ In LTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP In pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S does NOT satisfy the WTP In finitary pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP sfi 22/38

  33. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak transfer property: WTP R satisfies the weak transfer property if s R t s R t µ µ µ implies ∆ ∆ lift( R ) Θ In LTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP In pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S does NOT satisfy the WTP In finitary pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP sfi 22/38

  34. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak transfer property: WTP R satisfies the weak transfer property if s R t s R t µ µ µ implies ∆ ∆ lift( R ) Θ In LTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP In pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S does NOT satisfy the WTP In finitary pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP sfi 22/38

  35. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Weak transfer property: WTP R satisfies the weak transfer property if s R t s R t µ µ µ implies ∆ ∆ lift( R ) Θ In LTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP In pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S does NOT satisfy the WTP In finitary pLTSs: The simulation preorder ⊳ S satisfies the WTP sfi 22/38

  36. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder via induction Using coinduction: ⊆ S × D ( S ) is the largest solution to = S im ( ⊳ S ) ⊳ S ⊳ S Using induction: 0 = S × D ( S ) ⊳ S 1 = S im ( ⊳ S 0 ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ( k +1) = S im ( ⊳ S k ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ∞ = k ∩ k ≥ 0 ⊳ S ⊳ S In general ∞ Θ s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊳ S sfi 23/38

  37. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder via induction Using coinduction: ⊆ S × D ( S ) is the largest solution to = S im ( ⊳ S ) ⊳ S ⊳ S Using induction: 0 = S × D ( S ) ⊳ S 1 = S im ( ⊳ S 0 ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ( k +1) = S im ( ⊳ S k ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ∞ = k ∩ k ≥ 0 ⊳ S ⊳ S In general ∞ Θ s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊳ S sfi 23/38

  38. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder via induction Using coinduction: ⊆ S × D ( S ) is the largest solution to = S im ( ⊳ S ) ⊳ S ⊳ S Using induction: 0 = S × D ( S ) ⊳ S 1 = S im ( ⊳ S 0 ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ( k +1) = S im ( ⊳ S k ) ⊳ S . . . = . . . ∞ = k ∩ k ≥ 0 ⊳ S ⊳ S In general ∞ Θ s ⊳ S Θ implies s ⊳ S sfi 23/38

  39. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  40. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  41. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  42. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  43. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  44. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  45. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences The simulation preorder: coinduction v. induction ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In an LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finite state LTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ does NOT imply s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a pLTS: s ⊳ S ∞ Θ implies s ⊳ S Θ ◮ In a finitary pLTS: s ⊳ S Key property of finitary pLTS: { ∆ | s = ⇒ ∆ } is finitely generable IE: There exists finite ∆ 1 . . . ∆ k such that ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ i � p i ≤ 1 ◮ s = ⇒ ∆ only if ∆ = p 1 · ∆ 1 + . . . p n · ∆ k sfi 24/38

  46. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Outline Inductive methods Coinductive methods A-simulations Proving inequivalences sfi 25/38

  47. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations for must testing Ingredients: ◮ weak actions as usual ◮ divergence/convergence ◮ failures/acceptances ◮ Convergence: ∆ ⇓ if there is no infinite sequence ∆ − → . . . τ − → ∆ k τ − → . . . τ Alternatively: ∆ � = ⇒ EmpDist a ◮ Acceptances: ∆ acc A if ∆ ⇓ and ∆ τ = ⇒ Θ implies Θ = ⇒ for some a in ∆ sfi 26/38

  48. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations for must testing Ingredients: ◮ weak actions as usual ◮ divergence/convergence ◮ failures/acceptances ◮ Convergence: ∆ ⇓ if there is no infinite sequence ∆ − → . . . τ − → ∆ k τ − → . . . τ Alternatively: ∆ � = ⇒ EmpDist a ◮ Acceptances: ∆ acc A if ∆ ⇓ and ∆ τ = ⇒ Θ implies Θ = ⇒ for some a in ∆ sfi 26/38

  49. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations for must testing Ingredients: ◮ weak actions as usual ◮ divergence/convergence ◮ failures/acceptances ◮ Convergence: ∆ ⇓ if there is no infinite sequence ∆ − → . . . τ − → ∆ k τ − → . . . τ Alternatively: ∆ � = ⇒ EmpDist a ◮ Acceptances: ∆ acc A if ∆ ⇓ and ∆ τ = ⇒ Θ implies Θ = ⇒ for some a in ∆ sfi 26/38

  50. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations for must testing Ingredients: ◮ weak actions as usual ◮ divergence/convergence ◮ failures/acceptances ◮ Convergence: ∆ ⇓ if there is no infinite sequence ∆ − → . . . τ − → ∆ k τ − → . . . τ Alternatively: ∆ � = ⇒ EmpDist a ◮ Acceptances: ∆ acc A if ∆ ⇓ and ∆ τ = ⇒ Θ implies Θ = ⇒ for some a in ∆ sfi 26/38

  51. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  52. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  53. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  54. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  55. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  56. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences A-simulations in a pLTS Largest relation ⊲ ⊆ D sub ( S ) × S satisfying: acc Θ ⊲ acc s implies: whenever Θ ⇓ , ◮ s ⇓ ◮ Θ acc A implies s acc A ◮ and Θ ⊲ s Θ ⊲ s acc acc µ µ µ implies Θ ′ ∆ lift( ⊲ acc ) ∆ Use of subdistributions D sub ( S ) facilitates the treatment of sfi divergence 27/38

  57. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and must testing Soundness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊲ acc s implies Θ ⊑ pmust s difficult proof because of divergence Completeness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊑ pmust s implies Θ ⊳ S s difficult proof sfi 28/38

  58. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and must testing Soundness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊲ acc s implies Θ ⊑ pmust s difficult proof because of divergence Completeness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊑ pmust s implies Θ ⊳ S s difficult proof sfi 28/38

  59. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Simulations and must testing Soundness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊲ acc s implies Θ ⊑ pmust s difficult proof because of divergence Completeness: In a finitary pLTS Θ ⊑ pmust s implies Θ ⊳ S s difficult proof sfi 28/38

  60. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Outline Inductive methods Coinductive methods A-simulations Proving inequivalences sfi 29/38

  61. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Are these distinguishable by any test ? Q P d d 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 b c a b a c a Q �⊑ pmay P Use test T = d . a .ω : ◮ sup of A pply ( T , Q ) = 1 ◮ sup of A pply ( T , P ) = 1 2 sfi 30/38

  62. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Are these distinguishable by any test ? Q P d d 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 b c a b a c a Q �⊑ pmay P Use test T = d . a .ω : ◮ sup of A pply ( T , Q ) = 1 ◮ sup of A pply ( T , P ) = 1 2 sfi 30/38

  63. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Is P ⊑ pmay Q ? Q P d d 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 b c a b a c a With T = d . ( τ. a . ( ω 1 2 ⊕ 0 ) + τ. ( b .ω 1 2 ⊕ c .ω )) ◮ sup of A pply ( T , P ) = 3 4 ◮ sup of A pply ( T , Q ) = 1 2 ◮ Distinguishing tests can be hard to find. sfi 31/38

  64. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Is P ⊑ pmay Q ? Q P d d 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 b c a b a c a With T = d . ( τ. a . ( ω 1 2 ⊕ 0 ) + τ. ( b .ω 1 2 ⊕ c .ω )) ◮ sup of A pply ( T , P ) = 3 4 ◮ sup of A pply ( T , Q ) = 1 2 ◮ Distinguishing tests can be hard to find. sfi 31/38

  65. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Is P ⊑ pmay Q ? Q P d d 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 b c a b a c a With T = d . ( τ. a . ( ω 1 2 ⊕ 0 ) + τ. ( b .ω 1 2 ⊕ c .ω )) ◮ sup of A pply ( T , P ) = 3 4 ◮ sup of A pply ( T , Q ) = 1 2 ◮ Distinguishing tests can be hard to find. sfi 31/38

  66. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Characterising preorders using logical properties A set of properties Prop characterises ⊑ whenever ◮ P ⊑ Q implies for every φ in Prop Q satisfies φ whenever P satisfies φ ◮ P �⊑ Q whenever there is some φ in Prop such that ◮ P satisfies φ ◮ Q does not satisfy φ Consequence: To show P �⊑ Q it is sufficient to find some φ such that ◮ P satisfies φ ◮ Q does not satisfy φ sfi 32/38

  67. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences Characterising preorders using logical properties A set of properties Prop characterises ⊑ whenever ◮ P ⊑ Q implies for every φ in Prop Q satisfies φ whenever P satisfies φ ◮ P �⊑ Q whenever there is some φ in Prop such that ◮ P satisfies φ ◮ Q does not satisfy φ Consequence: To show P �⊑ Q it is sufficient to find some φ such that ◮ P satisfies φ ◮ Q does not satisfy φ sfi 32/38

  68. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences LTS: A modal logic for process properties tt | ff | φ ∧ φ ′ | φ ∨ φ ′ | φ ::= � µ � φ | [ µ ] φ | acc A Satisfaction: ◮ P | µ = � µ � φ if P = ⇒ Q and Q | = φ ◮ P | = [ µ ] φ if ◮ P ⇓ ◮ Q | µ = φ whenever P = ⇒ Q ◮ P | = acc A if ◮ P ⇓ a ◮ P τ = ⇒ Q implies Q = ⇒ for some a in A sfi 33/38

  69. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences LTS: A modal logic for process properties tt | ff | φ ∧ φ ′ | φ ∨ φ ′ | φ ::= � µ � φ | [ µ ] φ | acc A Satisfaction: ◮ P | µ = � µ � φ if P = ⇒ Q and Q | = φ ◮ P | = [ µ ] φ if ◮ P ⇓ ◮ Q | µ = φ whenever P = ⇒ Q ◮ P | = acc A if ◮ P ⇓ a ◮ P τ = ⇒ Q implies Q = ⇒ for some a in A sfi 33/38

  70. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences LTS: A modal logic for process properties tt | ff | φ ∧ φ ′ | φ ∨ φ ′ | φ ::= � µ � φ | [ µ ] φ | acc A Satisfaction: ◮ P | µ = � µ � φ if P = ⇒ Q and Q | = φ ◮ P | = [ µ ] φ if ◮ P ⇓ ◮ Q | µ = φ whenever P = ⇒ Q ◮ P | = acc A if ◮ P ⇓ a ◮ P τ = ⇒ Q implies Q = ⇒ for some a in A sfi 33/38

  71. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences LTS: A modal logic for process properties tt | ff | φ ∧ φ ′ | φ ∨ φ ′ | φ ::= � µ � φ | [ µ ] φ | acc A Satisfaction: ◮ P | µ = � µ � φ if P = ⇒ Q and Q | = φ ◮ P | = [ µ ] φ if ◮ P ⇓ ◮ Q | µ = φ whenever P = ⇒ Q ◮ P | = acc A if ◮ P ⇓ a ◮ P τ = ⇒ Q implies Q = ⇒ for some a in A sfi 33/38

  72. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences LTS: Property logics and testing May testing: ◮ ⊑ may characterised by L = { tt , � µ � , ∨ } Must testing: ◮ ⊑ must characterised by L = { ff , [ µ ] , ∧ , acc A } sfi 34/38

  73. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences pLTS: A modal logic for probabilistic process properties φ ::= . . . . . . � µ � ψ dist | [ µ ] ψ dist . . . ψ dist := φ | φ p ∧ ψ dist | φ p ∨ ψ dist Satisfaction: ∆ | = φ ◮ ∆ | µ = � µ � ψ dist if ∆ = ⇒ Θ and Θ | = ψ dist ◮ ∆ | = [ µ ] ψ dist if ◮ ∆ ⇓ ◮ Θ | µ = ψ dist whenever ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ | ◮ ∆ | = ψ 1 p ∧ ψ 2 if = ψ 1 p ∨ ψ 2 if ◮ ∆ = p · ∆ 1 + (1 − p ) · ∆ 2 ◮ ∆ = p · ∆ 1 + (1 − p ) · ∆ 2 ◮ ∆ 1 | ◮ ∆ 1 | = ψ 1 and ∆ 2 | = ψ 2 = ψ 1 or ∆ 2 | = ψ 2 sfi 35/38

  74. Induction Coinduction A-simulations Inequivalences pLTS: A modal logic for probabilistic process properties φ ::= . . . . . . � µ � ψ dist | [ µ ] ψ dist . . . ψ dist := φ | φ p ∧ ψ dist | φ p ∨ ψ dist Satisfaction: ∆ | = φ ◮ ∆ | µ = � µ � ψ dist if ∆ = ⇒ Θ and Θ | = ψ dist ◮ ∆ | = [ µ ] ψ dist if ◮ ∆ ⇓ ◮ Θ | µ = ψ dist whenever ∆ = ⇒ Θ ◮ ∆ | ◮ ∆ | = ψ 1 p ∧ ψ 2 if = ψ 1 p ∨ ψ 2 if ◮ ∆ = p · ∆ 1 + (1 − p ) · ∆ 2 ◮ ∆ = p · ∆ 1 + (1 − p ) · ∆ 2 ◮ ∆ 1 | ◮ ∆ 1 | = ψ 1 and ∆ 2 | = ψ 2 = ψ 1 or ∆ 2 | = ψ 2 sfi 35/38

Recommend

Reactive Probabilistic Programming Semantics with Mixed Nondeterministic/Probabilistic Automata

Reactive Probabilistic Programming Semantics with Mixed Nondeterministic/Probabilistic Automata

Reactive Probabilistic Programming Semantics with Mixed Nondeterministic/Probabilistic Automata Albert Benveniste Jean-Baptiste Raclet INRIA Rennes and IRIT Toulouse September 18, 2020 What is Probabilistic Programming? Bringing the

855 views • 59 slides
Propositional proof systems and bounded arithmetic for logspace and nondeterministic logspace

Propositional proof systems and bounded arithmetic for logspace and nondeterministic logspace

Propositional proof systems and bounded arithmetic for logspace and nondeterministic logspace Sam Buss U.C. San Diego Virtual Seminar Proof Society proofsociety.org October 7, 2020 includes joint work with Anupam Das and Alexander Knop

367 views • 25 slides
Convex Language Semantics for Nondeterministic Probabilistic Automata Gerco van Heerdt 1 Justin

Convex Language Semantics for Nondeterministic Probabilistic Automata Gerco van Heerdt 1 Justin

Convex Language Semantics for Nondeterministic Probabilistic Automata Gerco van Heerdt 1 Justin Hsu 1,2,3 el Ouaknine 4 Alexandra Silva 1 Jo 1 University College London 2 Cornell University 3 University of WisconsinMadison 4 MPI-SWS and

561 views • 20 slides
Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Fall 2014

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Fall 2014

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Fall 2014 Bozhena Bidyuk Rina Dechter Reading Darwiche chapter 15, related papers Overview 1. Probabilistic Reasoning/Graphical models 2. Importance

923 views • 63 slides
Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017 Bozhena Bidyuk Rina Dechter Reading Darwiche chapter 15, related papers Overview 1. Probabilistic Reasoning/Graphical models 2. Importance

1.03k views • 54 slides
Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2017 Bozhena Bidyuk Rina Dechter Reading Darwiche chapter 15, related papers Overview 1. Probabilistic Reasoning/Graphical models 2. Importance

889 views • 63 slides
The Probabilistic Method Techniques Union bound Argument from expectation Alterations The

The Probabilistic Method Techniques Union bound Argument from expectation Alterations The

The Probabilistic Method Techniques Union bound Argument from expectation Alterations The second moment method The (Lovasz) Local Lemma And much more Alon and Spencer, The Probabilistic Method Bolobas, Random Graphs Hung Q.

258 views • 9 slides
The Probabilistic Method: Proof Through a Probabilistic Argument Compute n n n

The Probabilistic Method: Proof Through a Probabilistic Argument Compute n n n

The Probabilistic Method: Proof Through a Probabilistic Argument Compute n n n 1 i i 2 i =0 Proof Through a Probabilistic Argument Compute n n n n n 1 1 n ! i = i i 2 i !( n

419 views • 27 slides
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 7: Proof Techniques (part 1) CPSC 121 2011W T2 1 Unit

CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 7: Proof Techniques (part 1) CPSC 121 2011W T2 1 Unit

CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 7: Proof Techniques (part 1) CPSC 121 2011W T2 1 Unit 7: Proof Techniques (part 1) th at Assignment #3 due Thursday February 16 17:00. Online quiz #8 very tentatively due Thursday st at 19:00 March 1

623 views • 44 slides
Interactive proof and zero knowledge protocols Zero-knowledge: definition Probabilistic

Interactive proof and zero knowledge protocols Zero-knowledge: definition Probabilistic

Interactive proof and zero knowledge protocols Zero-knowledge: definition Probabilistic complexity classes and Interactive proofs Graph isomorphism and PCP Some zero knowledge protocols: Feige-Fiat-Shamir authentication protocol

170 views • 16 slides
Whats on todays menu? F Wrap up of Proof Techniques F Review of Chapter 1 F Introduction to

Whats on todays menu? F Wrap up of Proof Techniques F Review of Chapter 1 F Introduction to

Whats on todays menu? F Wrap up of Proof Techniques F Review of Chapter 1 F Introduction to Sets R. Rao, CSE 311 Chapter 1 review 1 Existence Proofs F Goal: Prove x P( x ) 1 st way: F Two ways: 2 nd way: Constructive proof Destructive

264 views • 5 slides
A Formalized Hierarchy of Probabilistic System Types Proof Pearl olzl 1 , Andreas Lochbihler 2 ,

A Formalized Hierarchy of Probabilistic System Types Proof Pearl olzl 1 , Andreas Lochbihler 2 ,

A Formalized Hierarchy of Probabilistic System Types Proof Pearl olzl 1 , Andreas Lochbihler 2 , and Dmitriy Traytel 1 , 2 Johannes H 1 Institut f ur Informatik 2 Institute of Information Security TU M unchen, Germany ETH Zurich,

1.03k views • 85 slides
Probabilistic Parsing: Issues & Improvement LING 571 Deep Processing Techniques for

Probabilistic Parsing: Issues & Improvement LING 571 Deep Processing Techniques for

Probabilistic Parsing: Issues & Improvement LING 571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP October 14, 2019 Shane Steinert-Threlkeld 1 Announcements HW2 grades posted (mean 87) Reference code available in

634 views • 62 slides
Motivation Silicon-based techniques are approaching practical A Probabilistic Approach to Nano-

Motivation Silicon-based techniques are approaching practical A Probabilistic Approach to Nano-

Motivation Silicon-based techniques are approaching practical A Probabilistic Approach to Nano- limits computing J. Chen, J. Mundy, Y. Bai, S.-M. C. Chan, P. Petrica and R. I. Bahar Division of Engineering Brown University Acknowledgements:

545 views • 7 slides
Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2018

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2018

Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models ICS 276, Spring 2018 Bozhena Bidyuk Rina Dechter Reading Darwiche chapter 15, related papers slides11b 828X 2019 Algorithms for Reasoning with graphical models

1.12k views • 67 slides
Techniques for managing probabilistic data Dan Suciu University of Washington 1 Databases Are

Techniques for managing probabilistic data Dan Suciu University of Washington 1 Databases Are

Techniques for managing probabilistic data Dan Suciu University of Washington 1 Databases Are Deterministic Applications since 1970s required precise semantics Accounting, inventory Database tools are deterministic A

1.66k views • 144 slides
Today Nondeterministic games: backgammon 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 See Russell and

Today Nondeterministic games: backgammon 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 See Russell and

1 2 Today Nondeterministic games: backgammon 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 See Russell and Norvig, chapter 6 Game playing Nondeterministic games Games with imperfect information 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13

84 views • 5 slides
Slides Set 11 (part a): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models

Slides Set 11 (part a): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models

Algorithms for Reasoning with graphical models Slides Set 11 (part a): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models Rina Dechter (Reading Darwiche chapter 15, related papers) slides11a 828X 2019 Sampling

1.05k views • 78 slides
Infeasible Paths Elimination by Symb. Execution Techniques: Proof of Correctness and Preservation

Infeasible Paths Elimination by Symb. Execution Techniques: Proof of Correctness and Preservation

Infeasible Paths Elimination by Symb. Execution Techniques: Proof of Correctness and Preservation of Paths Romain Aissat, Frederic Voisin and Burkhart Wolff Univ - Paris-Sud / LRI 1 Abstract TRACER [8] is a tool for verifying safety

361 views • 21 slides
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Module 9: Proof Techniques (part 2) Mathematical Induction

CPSC 121: Models of Computation Module 9: Proof Techniques (part 2) Mathematical Induction

CPSC 121: Models of Computation Module 9: Proof Techniques (part 2) Mathematical Induction Module 9: Announcements Midterm #2: th , 2016 at 17:00 Monday November 14 Modules 5 (from multiple quantifiers onwards) to 8 plus labs 4, 5, 6 and 7.

737 views • 62 slides
Collapsing Nondeterministic Automata Ashutosh Bhatia Nitin Rai Sep 12, 2005 FACTS of NFA and

Collapsing Nondeterministic Automata Ashutosh Bhatia Nitin Rai Sep 12, 2005 FACTS of NFA and

Collapsing Nondeterministic Automata Ashutosh Bhatia Nitin Rai Sep 12, 2005 FACTS of NFA and DFA A nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) may be smaller than a DFA by an exponential factor [Meyer and Fischer, 1971]. The minimal DFA is

379 views • 22 slides
Geometric Registration for Deformable Shapes 3.4 Probabilistic Techniques RANSAC Forward

Geometric Registration for Deformable Shapes 3.4 Probabilistic Techniques RANSAC Forward

Geometric Registration for Deformable Shapes 3.4 Probabilistic Techniques RANSAC Forward Search Efficiency Guarantees Ransac and Forward Search The Basic Idea Random Sampling Algorithms Estimation subject to outliers: We have

278 views • 24 slides
Slides Set 9(part b): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models

Slides Set 9(part b): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models

Reasoning with graphical models Slides Set 9(part b): Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic and Deterministic Graphical models Rina Dechter (Reading Darwiche chapter 15, cutset-sampling paper posted) slides 9b 276 2020 Overview 1.

1.02k views • 63 slides
3.10: Nondeterministic Finite Automata In this section, we study the second of our more restricted

3.10: Nondeterministic Finite Automata In this section, we study the second of our more restricted

3.10: Nondeterministic Finite Automata In this section, we study the second of our more restricted kinds of finite automata: nondeterministic finite automata. 1 / 22 Definition of NFAs A nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) M is a finite

978 views • 22 slides

More recommend