tree automata approximations and constraints for
play

Tree Automata, Approximations, and Constraints for Verification - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 28, 2023 •142 likes •1.97k views

Tree Automata, Approximations, and Constraints for Verification Ph.D. thesis defence for Vincent Hugot , Supervised by O. Kouchnarenko and P.-C. Ham {pheam,vhugot,okouchna}@femto-st.fr University of Franche-Comt DGA & Inria/CASSIS &

  1. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking LTL on Rewrite Sequences 1 Statement of the Central Problem Our Approach: An Overview TAGE With a Bounded Number of Constraints 2 Global Equality Constraints Overview of the Results Other Works and Some Perspectives 3 Results on SAT & Tree-Walking Automata Perspectives and Questions Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 8 / 24

  2. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 R , Π | = ¬ X : “The first transition, if it occurs, is not by X ” π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  3. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : “The first transition, if it occurs, is not by X ” π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : “There is a first transition, and it is by X ” π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ? Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  4. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : “The first transition, if it occurs, is not by X ” π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : “There is a first transition, and it is by X ” π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  5. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : “The first transition, if it occurs, is not by X ” π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : “There is a first transition, and it is by X ” π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : “No transition that occurs is by X ” π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  6. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : “No transition that occurs is by X ” π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : “All transitions that occur are by X ” Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  7. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : “No transition that occurs is by X ” π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : “All transitions that occur are by X ” π 4 ≡ π 2 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ R ∗ ( Π ) ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) ? Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  8. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : “No transition that occurs is by X ” π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : “All transitions that occur are by X ” π 4 ≡ π 2 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ R ∗ ( Π ) ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) ? ω -language! Too strong Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  9. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : “No transition that occurs is by X ” π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : “All transitions that occur are by X ” π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  10. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 4 � X : 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . ϕ : π = “ R , Π | = ϕ is translated by π ” “for all executions, ϕ is satisfied” ∀ x.P ( x ) ∧ ∀ x.Q ( x ) ⇐ ⇒ ∀ x. ( P ( x ) ∧ Q ( x )) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  11. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 4 � X : 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . ∀ x.P ( x ) ∧ ∀ x.Q ( x ) ⇐ ⇒ ∀ x. ( P ( x ) ∧ Q ( x )) 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = ∀ x.P ( x ) ∨ ∀ x.Q ( x ) = ⇒ ∀ x. ( P ( x ) ∨ Q ( x )) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  12. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 4 � X : 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . ∀ x.P ( x ) ∧ ∀ x.Q ( x ) ⇐ ⇒ ∀ x. ( P ( x ) ∧ Q ( x )) 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = ∀ x.P ( x ) ∨ ∀ x.Q ( x ) = ⇒ ∀ x. ( P ( x ) ∨ Q ( x )) 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = ∀ x. ¬ P ( x ) � = ¬∀ x.P ( x ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  13. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  14. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  15. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  16. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  17. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  18. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] � ( X ⇒ • Y ) : π 0 ≡ π 7 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  19. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] � ( X ⇒ • Y ) : π 0 ≡ π 7 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] What about • Y ⇒ X ? Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  20. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation 1 ¬ X : π 1 ≡ X ( Π ) = ∅ 2 X : π 2 ≡ [ R \ X ]( Π ) = ∅ ∧ Π ⊆ X − 1 ( T ) 3 � ¬ X : π 3 ≡ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ ≡ π 1 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] 4 � X : π 4 ≡ [ R \ X ]( R ∗ ( Π )) = ∅ 5 Conjunction: if ϕ : π 5 and ψ : π ′ 5 then ϕ ∧ ψ : π 5 ∧ π ′ 5 . 6 Disjunction: π 6 ∨ π ′ ⇒ R , Π | = ϕ ∨ ψ 6 = 7 Negation: R , Π | / ϕ � = R , Π | = ¬ ϕ : “NNF” required = 8 Implication: X ⇒ • Y : π 7 ≡ [ R \ Y ]( X ( Π )) = ∅ ∧ X ( Π ) ⊆ Y − 1 ( T ) X : π 2 , Y : π ′ 2 ≡ π 2 [ Y/X ] , π 7 ≡ π ′ 2 [ X ( Π ) /Π ] � ( X ⇒ • Y ) : π 0 ≡ π 7 [ R ∗ ( Π ) /Π ] What about • Y ⇒ X ? Other techniques (signatures,. . . ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 9 / 24

  21. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Translation Rules, by Examples A dozen rules, e.g. conjunction: � Π � σ � ϕ ∧ ψ � � � Π � σ � ϕ � ∧ � Π � σ � ψ � always (simplest case): � Π � ε � � ϕ � � � R ∗ ( Π ) � ⋆ ε � ϕ � positive literal: � � Π � σ � X � ( σ \ X ) ⊳ � h ( σ \ X ) = ε h ( σ \ X )− 1 � h ( σ \ X ) � � Π k σ \ X ⊆ R − 1 ( T ) = ∅ Π ∧ σ \ X k ∈ ∇ σ,k = 0 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 10 / 24

  22. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References LTL → Rewrite Proposition Derivation Tree Derivation tree: automatic translation and proof � � Π � ε � � ( X ⇒ • Y ) � � � R ∗ ( Π ) � ⋆ ε � X ⇒ • Y � � � R ∗ ( Π ) � � X � R | N 1 � � • Y � � � R ∗ ( Π ) � � X � R | N 1 � � ◦ Y � ∧ X ( R ∗ ( Π )) ⊆ R − 1 ( T ) . � � X ( R ∗ ( Π )) � ⋆ ε � Y � [ R \ Y ]( X ( R ∗ ( Π ))) = ∅ Optional global optimisation phase: R − 1 ( T ) → Y − 1 ( T ) . Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 11 / 24

  23. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Translatable Fragment Exactly rewrite-translatable fragment: X ∈ ℘ ( R ) , m ∈ N ϕ : = ⊤ | ⊥ | X | ¬ X | ϕ ∧ ϕ | ψ ⇒ ϕ | • ϕ | ◦ ϕ | � ϕ ψ : = ⊤ | ⊥ | X | ¬ X | ψ ∨ ψ | ψ ∧ ψ | • ψ | ◦ ψ | Φ Φ : = at least ε -stabilisable � ϕ Practical pre-experimental evaluation: good partial support of [Dwyer et al., 1999] patterns. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 12 / 24

  24. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References LTL on Rewrite Sequences Perspectives (Translation Into Rewrite Proposition) R Π ϕ δ 1 , . . . , δ n π To Rew. Prop. To Approx. R , Π | = ϕ ? [Héam et al., 2012a] Int. Conf. IJCAR’12, Manchester Extensions : Past-Time and Existential LTL Dealing with eventuality by studying “exhaustion”: e.g. ♦ ¬ { f ( x ) → x } holds with bounded f -height & no intro Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 13 / 24

  25. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References LTL on Rewrite Sequences Perspectives (Approximated Decision Procedures) R Π ϕ δ 1 , . . . , δ n π To Rew. Prop. To Approx. = ϕ ? R , Π | Coping with more non-linearity – e.g. protocols, rewrite steps e.g. f ( x, x ) → g ( x ) , f ( x ) → g ( x, x ) ,. . . Tractable algorithmic toolbox for TAGE Last points ⇒ closer study of TAGE complexity Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 14 / 24

  26. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking LTL on Rewrite Sequences 1 Statement of the Central Problem Our Approach: An Overview TAGE With a Bounded Number of Constraints 2 Global Equality Constraints Overview of the Results Other Works and Some Perspectives 3 Results on SAT & Tree-Walking Automata Perspectives and Questions Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 14 / 24

  27. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] TAGE, TA = , Positive TAGED, A = � A , Q, F, ∆, ≅ � : � A , Q, F, ∆ � vanilla tree automaton ta ( A ) ≅ equality constraints , ≅ ⊆ Q 2 Constraint p ≅ q : run ρ of A on t : run of ta ( A ) on t satisfying ≅ : ∀ α, β ∈ P ( t ) ; ρ ( α ) ≅ ρ ( β ) ⇒ t | α = t | β accepting run : accepting for ta ( A ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 15 / 24

  28. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u = f and v = f f f f a a a a a a a Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 16 / 24

  29. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u, ρ u = f q f and v = f f ^ f ^ f a q q a q a q a q a q a a Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 16 / 24

  30. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u = f and v, ρ v = f q f f f f ^ a ^ q q a a a a a q a q Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 16 / 24

  31. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking LTL on Rewrite Sequences 1 Statement of the Central Problem Our Approach: An Overview TAGE With a Bounded Number of Constraints 2 Global Equality Constraints Overview of the Results Other Works and Some Perspectives 3 Results on SAT & Tree-Walking Automata Perspectives and Questions Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 16 / 24

  32. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References TA = versus TA = k Restriction on the kind of constraints: Rigid Automata (RTA) Same expressive power as TA = Less compact representations Linear emptiness / finiteness tests, vs. ExpTime -complete Applications: [Jacquemard et al., 2009, Vacher, 2010] What of the number of constraints? TA = k A = � Σ, Q, F, ∆, ≅ � : TA = A � Σ, Q, F, ∆, ≅ � ≅ such that Card ( ≅ ) � k Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 17 / 24

  33. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Summary of Results [Héam et al., 2012c] Int. Conf. CIAA’12, Porto Strict hierarchy of powers: L ( TA = k ) ⊂ L ( TA = k + 1 ) Emptiness linear for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete TA = 2 Finiteness polynomial for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete for TA = 2 NP-complete membership becomes polynomial if k fixed. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  34. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Summary of Results [Héam et al., 2012c] Int. Conf. CIAA’12, Porto Strict hierarchy of powers: L ( TA = k ) ⊂ L ( TA = k + 1 ) σ u i ∈ T ( A i ) ∀ i u k u k σ u k − 1 u k − 1 σ u 1 u 1 ⊥ , Emptiness linear for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete TA = 2 Finiteness polynomial for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete for TA = 2 NP-complete membership becomes polynomial if k fixed. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  35. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Summary of Results [Héam et al., 2012c] Int. Conf. CIAA’12, Porto Strict hierarchy of powers: L ( TA = k ) ⊂ L ( TA = k + 1 ) Emptiness linear for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete TA = 2 . . . u n σ σ σ σ u n − 1 σ u 1 u 2 u 3 . . . σ σ σ σ u u u u u Finiteness polynomial for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete for TA = 2 NP-complete membership becomes polynomial if k fixed. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  36. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Summary of Results [Héam et al., 2012c] Int. Conf. CIAA’12, Porto Strict hierarchy of powers: L ( TA = k ) ⊂ L ( TA = k + 1 ) Emptiness linear for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete TA = 2 Finiteness polynomial for TA = 1 , ExpTime-complete for TA = 2 Reduction of emptiness to finiteness. NP-complete membership becomes polynomial if k fixed. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  37. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Summary of Results NP-complete membership becomes polynomial if k fixed. − h ∈ H t ← P − → G P S t • • • G 1 = { p, q } C G 1 C G 1 G 2 = { r, s, t } C G 3 • • • • C G 2 G 3 = { q x } . . . • • • • • • • • C G n G n Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  38. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking LTL on Rewrite Sequences 1 Statement of the Central Problem Our Approach: An Overview TAGE With a Bounded Number of Constraints 2 Global Equality Constraints Overview of the Results Other Works and Some Perspectives 3 Results on SAT & Tree-Walking Automata Perspectives and Questions Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 18 / 24

  39. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References TAGE SAT & Tree-Walking Overloops [Héam et al., 2010] Int. Workshop CSTVA’10, Paris [Héam et al., 2011] Int. Conf. CIAA’11, Blois [Héam et al., 2012b] Int. Journal Theo. Comp. Sci. SAT Encoding for TAGE membership & optimisations. Formal treatment of tree-walking loops for transformation into bottom-up TA; revealed missing factor in space Σ × T × 2 Q 2 . Introduced tree-walking overloops : restores T × 2 Q 2 , smaller automata in practice in extensive random tests. Shown overloops upper-bound is | T | · 2 | Q | log 2 ( | Q | + 1 ) in the deterministic case. Note that exponential is unavoidable. Polynomial overloops-based approximation to TWA emptiness, vs. ExpTime -c. Very precise in random tests. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 19 / 24

  40. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Polynomial Approximation for Emptiness Random tests 1 Ad-hoc scheme: ≈ 20 000 TWA, 2 � | Q | � 20 , | ∆ | ≈ 3 × | Q | , 75 % of empty languages, only two Unknown instead of Empty . 2 Uniform scheme [Héam et al., 2009], REGAL back-end for FSA generation [Bassino et al., 2007]. 2 000 deterministic and complete TWA uniformly generated for each 2 � | Q | � 25 . Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 20 / 24

  41. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Polynomial Approximation for Emptiness Random tests 55 Approximation – 2000 samples Approximation – 200 samples 50 Exact – 200 samples 45 40 35 30 ∅ % 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 | Q | Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 20 / 24

  42. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Size Comparison: Loops vs. Overloops One Example & Uniform Generation Scheme For X : loops � B l � = 1986 ; overloops � B o � = 95 ; deterministic minimal � B m � = 56 ; smallest known non-deterministic � B s � = 34 . Loops 60 times worse than manual optimal; overloops 3 times . � = 1617 , � B ′ � � B ′ � o � = 78 . Orthogonal to post-processing cleanup: l � � B ′ � � B l � � B l � � ≈ � B o � l � � B o � ≈ 20.9 o � ≈ 20.7 o � ≈ 1.2 . and and � B ′ � � B ′ � � B ′ l Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 21 / 24

  43. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Size Comparison: Loops vs. Overloops One Example & Uniform Generation Scheme 18 � B l � � B l � / � B o � 16 � B ′ l � (clean) � B ′ l � / � B ′ o � � B o � � B l � / � B ′ l � � B ′ � B o � / � B ′ 14 3 o � (clean) o � 12 10 5 10 Ratio 2 � B � � 8 6 1 4 2 70 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 | Q A | | Q A | Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 21 / 24

  44. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking LTL on Rewrite Sequences 1 Statement of the Central Problem Our Approach: An Overview TAGE With a Bounded Number of Constraints 2 Global Equality Constraints Overview of the Results Other Works and Some Perspectives 3 Results on SAT & Tree-Walking Automata Perspectives and Questions Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 21 / 24

  45. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Conclusion / Summary Generalisation of the translation R Π ϕ δ 1 , . . . , δ n π To Rew. Prop. To Approx. R , Π | = ϕ ? Study of complexity of bounded global constraints Improved loops-based methods for tree-walking automata Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 22 / 24

  46. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Perspectives Full TAGE may not be required for X ( Π ) ; flat constraints ensure polynomial emptiness decision; are they enough? Implemented algorithmic toolbox for these automata. Rewrite propositions go beyond LTL (e.g. ∃ -LTL). What is their full expressive power ? Intermix state and transition -based properties. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 23 / 24

  47. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Questions ? Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 24 / 24

  48. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Supported Fragment, In Practice Partially Supported Patterns From [Dwyer et al., 1999] Scope Pattern Global Before After Between Until Support Absence 41 5 12 18 9 48% Universality 110 1 5 2 1 96% Existence 12 1 4 8 1 0% Bound Exist. 0 0 0 1 0 0% Response 241 1 3 0 0 99% Precedence 25 0 1 0 0 96% Resp. Chain 8 0 0 0 0 0% Prec. Chain 1 0 0 0 0 0% Support 95% 0% 32% 0% 0% 83% Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 25 / 24

  49. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Formal Tools for Verification Reliable Software Software failure is undesirable . . . Ariane 5, Therac-25, Mariner I, Phobos I, XA/21 USA & Canada Northeast 2003 blackout, MIM-104 Patriot anti-missile, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, Mars Global Surveyor space probes,. . . . . . hence the need for formal verification methods. E.G. With Hoare logic , correctness is a mathematical theorem. Precondition, code, post-condition: { ⊤ } x : = y { x = y } . Manual proofs require mathematical ingenuity. Automation ? Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 26 / 24

  50. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Model-Checking Rewrite Sequences Coding the Behaviour of the System: � ( X ⇒ • Y ) X r ′ i ∈ Y r i ∈ X u i v i t i R ∗ r ′ j ∈ Y r j ∈ X u j v j t j R ∗ X t 0 ∈ Π X r ′ k ∈ Y r k ∈ X R ∗ . . . . . . . . . r ′ n ∈ Y r n ∈ X R ∗ t n u n v n X Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 27 / 24

  51. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Maximal Rewrite Words Coding the Behaviour of the System X r ′ i ∈ Y r i ∈ X t i u i v i R ∗ r ′ j ∈ Y r j ∈ X t j u j v j R ∗ X t 0 ∈ Π X r ′ k ∈ Y r k ∈ X R ∗ . . . . . . . . . r ′ r n ∈ X n ∈ Y R ∗ u n v n t n X Executions may or may not terminate : finite and infinite words. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 28 / 24

  52. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Maximal Rewrite Words Coding the Behaviour of the System Finite or infinite words on R : � � � 1, n � → R � N = N ∪ { + ∞ } W = n ∈ N Notation: length # w ∈ N : # w = Card ( dom w ) . Maximal rewrite words of R , originating in Π : � Π � is the set of words w ∈ W such that ∃ u 0 ∈ Π : ∃ u 1 , . . . , u # w ∈ T : ∀ k ∈ dom w, w ( k ) → u k ∧ # w ∈ N ⇒ R ( { u # w } ) = ∅ u k − 1 − − − Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 28 / 24

  53. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Syntax and Semantics for LTL Close to Finite-LTL [Manna and Pnueli, 1995] ϕ : = X | ¬ ϕ | ϕ ∧ ϕ | • m ϕ | ◦ m ϕ | ϕ U ϕ X ∈ ℘ ( R ) ⊤ | ⊥ | ϕ ∨ ϕ | ϕ ⇒ ϕ | ♦ ϕ | � ϕ m ∈ N . ⇔ ( w, i ) | = X i ∈ dom w and w ( i ) ∈ X ( w, i ) | = ¬ ϕ ⇔ ( w, i ) | / ϕ = ⇔ ( w, i ) | = ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ( w, i ) | = ϕ and ( w, i ) | = ψ = • m ϕ ( w, i ) | ⇔ i + m ∈ dom w and ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ = ◦ m ϕ ( w, i ) | ⇔ i + m / ∈ dom w or ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ � ∃ j ∈ dom w : j � i ∧ ( w, j ) | = ψ ( w, i ) | = ϕ U ψ ⇔ ∧ ∀ k ∈ � i, j − 1 � , ( w, k ) | = ϕ For any w ∈ W , i ∈ N 1 , m ∈ N and X ∈ ℘ ( R ) . Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 29 / 24

  54. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Syntax and Semantics for LTL Close to Finite-LTL [Manna and Pnueli, 1995] ϕ : = X | ¬ ϕ | ϕ ∧ ϕ | • m ϕ | ◦ m ϕ | ϕ U ϕ X ∈ ℘ ( R ) ⊤ | ⊥ | ϕ ∨ ϕ | ϕ ⇒ ϕ | ♦ ϕ | � ϕ m ∈ N . ( w, i ) | = X ⇔ i ∈ dom w and w ( i ) ∈ X ⇔ ( w, i ) | = ¬ ϕ ( w, i ) | / ϕ = ( w, i ) | = ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ⇔ ( w, i ) | = ϕ and ( w, i ) | = ψ = • m ϕ ⇔ ( w, i ) | i + m ∈ dom w and ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ = ◦ m ϕ ( w, i ) | ⇔ i + m / ∈ dom w or ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ ⇔ ∀ j ∈ dom w, j � i ⇒ ( w, j ) | ( w, i ) | = � ϕ = ϕ For any w ∈ W , i ∈ N 1 , m ∈ N and X ∈ ℘ ( R ) . Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 29 / 24

  55. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Syntax and Semantics for LTL Close to Finite-LTL [Manna and Pnueli, 1995] ( w, i ) | ⇔ i ∈ dom w and w ( i ) ∈ X = X ( w, i ) | = ¬ ϕ ⇔ ( w, i ) | / ϕ = ⇔ = ϕ and ( w, i ) | ( w, i ) | = ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ( w, i ) | = ψ = • m ϕ ( w, i ) | ⇔ i + m ∈ dom w and ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ = ◦ m ϕ ⇔ ( w, i ) | i + m / ∈ dom w or ( w, i + m ) | = ϕ ( w, i ) | = � ϕ ⇔ ∀ j ∈ dom w, j � i ⇒ ( w, j ) | = ϕ For any w ∈ W , i ∈ N 1 , m ∈ N and X ∈ ℘ ( R ) . Satisfaction: = ϕ ⇐ ⇒ ( w, 1 ) | w | = ϕ R , Π | = ϕ ⇐ ⇒ ∀ w ∈ � Π � , w | = ϕ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 29 / 24

  56. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Rewrite Propositions Problem Statement: First Translation Step Rewrite proposition π on R , from Π ; has a trivial truth value γ : = ℓ = ∅ | ℓ ⊆ ℓ π : = γ | γ ∧ γ | γ ∨ γ ℓ : = Π | T | X ( ℓ ) | X − 1 ( ℓ ) | X ∗ ( ℓ ) X ∈ ℘ ( R ) Problem statement : translations into RP Input: R , ϕ ∈ LTL, Π ⊆ T Output: RP π such that: R , Π | = ϕ ⇐ ⇒ π (exact translation) R , Π | = ϕ ⇐ = π (under-approximated translation) R , Π | = ϕ = ⇒ π ( over-approximated translation ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 30 / 24

  57. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Intuitions for the Translation Boundaries of the Translatable Fragment R ∗ ( Π ) hides traces : ♦ X probably untranslatable. So are { ♦ , U , W , R , . . . } . Formulæ in sanitised form : negation on literals. Not exactly NNF. ( A ∨ B ) ⇒ C ( A ⇒ C ) ∧ ( B ⇒ C ) ( ¬ A ∧ ¬ B ) ∨ C Preprocessing to fit translatable “antecedent/consequent” form. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 31 / 24

  58. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures Implication: Girdling the Future Idea: ϕ ⇒ ψ ? ϕ as an assumption , i.e. a model of ϕ : ξ ( ϕ ) �� � � � 1, n � ∪ { ω } � Σ = → ℘ ( R ) × ℘ ( N ) . n ∈ N Notations: σ ∈ Σ compactly as σ = � f | S � = � ∂σ | ∇ σ � , or in extenso as � f ( 1 ) , f ( 2 ) , . . . , f ( # σ ) � f ( ω ) | S � . X ∧ ◦ 1 Y ∧ ◦ 2 � Z � � Example: ξ = � X, Y � Z | N 1 � Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 32 / 24

  59. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures Implication: Girdling the Future �� � � � Σ = � 1, n � ∪ { ω } → ℘ ( R ) × ℘ ( N ) . n ∈ N Notations: σ ∈ Σ compactly as σ = � f | S � = � ∂σ | ∇ σ � , or in extenso as � f ( 1 ) , f ( 2 ) , . . . , f ( # σ ) � f ( ω ) | S � . X ∧ ◦ 1 Y ∧ ◦ 2 � Z � � Example: ξ = � X, Y � Z | N 1 � Constrained Words: � Π � σ � = { w ∈ � Π � | # w ∈ ∇ σ ∧ ∀ k ∈ dom w, w ( k ) ∈ σ [ k ] } ∀ Π ⊆ T , ϕ ∈ A -LTL , � Π � ξ ( ϕ ) � = { w ∈ � Π � | w | = ϕ } Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 32 / 24

  60. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures: the Transformation ξ ( · ) Modelling the Antecedent to Girdle the Future ξ ( ⊥ ) = �� ∅ | ∅ � ξ ( ⊤ ) = �� R | N � = ε ξ ( X ) = � X � R | N 1 � ξ ( ¬ X ) = � R \ X � R | N � ξ ( • m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ◮ m ξ ( ◦ m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m ∞ � � � ξ ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) � ξ ( ψ ) ξ ( � ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m m = 0 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 33 / 24

  61. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures: the Transformation ξ ( · ) Modelling the Antecedent to Girdle the Future ξ ( ⊥ ) = �� ∅ | ∅ � ξ ( ⊤ ) = �� R | N � = ε ξ ( X ) = � X � R | N 1 � ξ ( ¬ X ) = � R \ X � R | N � ξ ( • m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ◮ m ξ ( ◦ m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m ∞ � � � ξ ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) � ξ ( ψ ) ξ ( � ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m m = 0 σ ◮ m = Strong Shift Right = � R 1 , . . . , R m , ∂σ ( 1 ) , . . . , ∂σ ( # σ ) � ∂σ ( ω ) | ( ∇ σ \ { 0 } ) + m � σ ⊲ m = Weak Shift Right = � R 1 , . . . , R m , ∂σ ( 1 ) , . . . , ∂σ ( # σ ) � ∂σ ( ω ) | � 0, m � ∪ ( ∇ σ + m ) � Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 33 / 24

  62. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures: the Transformation ξ ( · ) Modelling the Antecedent to Girdle the Future ξ ( ⊥ ) = �� ∅ | ∅ � ξ ( ⊤ ) = �� R | N � = ε ξ ( X ) = � X � R | N 1 � ξ ( ¬ X ) = � R \ X � R | N � ξ ( • m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ◮ m ξ ( ◦ m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m ∞ � � � ξ ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) � ξ ( ψ ) ξ ( � ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m m = 0 Product Property: � Π � σ � σ ′ � = � Π � σ � ∩ � Π � σ ′ � ρ = � X ′ � Z ′ | N 3 � Example: σ = � X, Y � Z | N 2 � σ � ρ = � X ∩ X ′ , Y ∩ Z ′ � Z ∩ Z ′ | N 3 � Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 33 / 24

  63. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Signatures: the Transformation ξ ( · ) Modelling the Antecedent to Girdle the Future ξ ( ⊥ ) = �� ∅ | ∅ � ξ ( ⊤ ) = �� R | N � = ε ξ ( X ) = � X � R | N 1 � ξ ( ¬ X ) = � R \ X � R | N � ξ ( • m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ◮ m ξ ( ◦ m ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m ∞ � � � ξ ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) � ξ ( ψ ) ξ ( � ϕ ) = ξ ( ϕ ) ⊲ m m = 0 ∞ ∞ ∞ � � � ◦ m ϕ � ϕ ⇔ � Π � σ n � = � Π � σ n � m = 0 n = 0 n = 0 ∞ ∞ � � � � � � σ ◮ n and σ ⊲ n converge ∀ σ ∈ Σ n = 0 n = 0 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 33 / 24

  64. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Rewrite Proposition → Procedure automatic kind inference and generation rules Kind inference: expressiveness required & assumptions α : TA ⊢ X ( α ) : TA = ⊳ α : TA , X : reg-pres ⊢ X ( α ) : TA ⊢ X − 1 ( T ) : TA = ⊳ X : left-lin ⊢ X − 1 ( T ) : TA α : TA = ⊢ ♮ α : TA , ♮ α : + α : TA ⊢ ♮ α : TA + + Procedure Generation: from languages to automata Γ � X − 1 ( T ) ⇒ Γ, � X : left-lin � � X − 1 ( T ) Γ � [ ℓ ֌ ∆, α ] � ∆ ⊢ ∗ α : TA � X ( ℓ ) ⇒ Γ, ∆, � X : reg-pres � � X ( α ) Γ � [ ℓ ֌ ∆, α ] � ∆ ⊢ ∗ α : TA = � X ( ℓ ) ⇒ Γ, ∆, � X : reg-pres � � X ( ♮ α ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 34 / 24

  65. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Supported Fragment, In Practice Partially Supported Patterns From [Dwyer et al., 1999] Scope Pattern Global Before After Between Until Support Absence 41 5 12 18 9 48% Universality 110 1 5 2 1 96% Existence 12 1 4 8 1 0% Bound Exist. 0 0 0 1 0 0% Response 241 1 3 0 0 99% Precedence 25 0 1 0 0 96% Resp. Chain 8 0 0 0 0 0% Prec. Chain 1 0 0 0 0 0% Support 95% 0% 32% 0% 0% 83% Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 35 / 24

  66. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata [Comon et al., 2008] Introduced in the fifties; regular tree languages : model-checking: programs, protocols,. . . automated theorem-proving XML schema and (esp. variants) query languages . . . and so much more Doesn’t deal with comparisons and non-linearity : { f ( u, u ) | u ∈ T ( Σ ) } e.g. password verification { f ( u, v ) | u, v ∈ T ( Σ ) , u � = v } e.g. primary keys R ( ℓ ) , ℓ regular, R a TRS e.g. { g ( x ) → f ( x, x ) } ( T ( A )) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 36 / 24

  67. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata Bottom-Up, Non-Deterministic, Finite Tree Automaton A = � A , Q, F, ∆ � : finite ranked alphabet A Q finite set of states F final states, F ⊆ Q ∆ finite set of transitions Transition r ∈ ∆ : σ ( q 1 , . . . , q n ) → q σ ∈ A n q 1 , . . . , q n , q ∈ Q Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 37 / 24

  68. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata Bottom-Up, Non-Deterministic, Finite A = { ∧ , ∨ / 2 , ¬ / 1 , ⊤ , ⊥ / 0 } , Q = { q 0 , q 1 } , F = { q 1 } , ∆ = � ⊤ → q 1 , � � ⊥ → q 0 , ¬ ( q b ) → q ¬ b � b, b ′ ∈ { 0, 1 } � � ∧ ( q b , q b ′ ) → q b ∧ b ′ , ∨ ( q b , q b ′ ) → q b ∨ b ′ t = ∧ ¬ ∨ ∧ ⊥ ¬ ⊥ ⊤ ⊥ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 38 / 24

  69. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata Bottom-Up, Non-Deterministic, Finite → ∗ → ∗ → ∗ ∧ ∧ ∧ ∆ ∆ ∆ ¬ ∨ ¬ ∨ ¬ ∨ ∧ ⊥ ¬ ∧ q 0 ¬ q 0 q 0 q 1 ⊥ ⊤ ⊥ q 0 q 1 q 0 → ∆ q 1 ∧ q 1 q 1 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 38 / 24

  70. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata Runs and Languages The reduction t → ∗ ∆ q 1 is captured by the run : q 1 decorated: ε ∧ q 1 q 1 q 1 1 ¬ q 1 2 ∨ q 1 q 0 q 0 q 1 11 ∧ q 0 21 ⊥ q 0 22 ¬ q 1 q 0 q 1 q 0 111 ⊥ q 0 112 ⊤ q 1 221 ⊥ q 0 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 39 / 24

  71. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] TAGE, TA = , Positive TAGED, A = � A , Q, F, ∆, ≅ � : � A , Q, F, ∆ � vanilla tree automaton ta ( A ) ≅ equality constraints , ≅ ⊆ Q 2 Constraint p ≅ q : run ρ of A on t : run of ta ( A ) on t satisfying ≅ : ∀ α, β ∈ P ( t ) ; ρ ( α ) ≅ ρ ( β ) ⇒ t | α = t | β accepting run : accepting for ta ( A ) Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 40 / 24

  72. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u = f and v = f f f f a a a a a a a Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 41 / 24

  73. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u, ρ u = f q f and v = f f ^ f ^ f a q q a q a q a q a q a a Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 41 / 24

  74. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] q ≅ ^ A = { a/ 0 , f/ 2 } , Q = { q, ^ q, q f } , F = { q f } , ^ q , and ∆ = { f (^ q, ^ q ) → q f , f ( q, q ) → q, f ( q, q ) → ^ q, a → q, a → ^ q } u = f and v, ρ v = f q f f f f ^ a ^ q q a a a a a q a q Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 41 / 24

  75. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] A = { ∧ , ∨ / 2 , ¬ / 1 , ⊤ , ⊥ / 0 } ⊎ X , Q = { q 0 , q 1 } ⊎ { v x | x ∈ X } and F = { q 1 } , new rules ⊤ → v x , ⊥ → v x , x ( q 0 , v x ) → q 1 , x ( v x , q 1 ) → q 0 for each x ∈ X , v x ≅ v x . ( x ∧ y ) ∨ ¬ x ≡ ∨ ∧ ¬ x y x ⊥ ⊤ ⊥ ⊤ ⊥ ⊤ Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 42 / 24

  76. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints [Filiot et al., 2008] A = { ∧ , ∨ / 2 , ¬ / 1 , ⊤ , ⊥ / 0 } ⊎ X , Q = { q 0 , q 1 } ⊎ { v x | x ∈ X } and F = { q 1 } , new rules ⊤ → v x , ⊥ → v x , x ( q 0 , v x ) → q 1 , x ( v x , q 1 ) → q 0 for each x ∈ X , v x ≅ v x . ( x ∧ y ) ∨ ¬ x ≡ ∨ q 1 ∧ q 0 ¬ q 1 x q 0 y q 1 x q 0 ⊥ v x ⊤ q 1 ⊥ q 0 ⊤ v y ⊥ v x ⊤ q 1 Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 42 / 24

  77. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References TA versus RTA versus TA = Closure, Complexity and Decidability RTA ( p ≅ p ) TA = TA ∪ PTime PTime PTime ∩ PTime ExpTime ExpTime ∅ ∅ ¬ ExpTime NP -c (a) t ∈ L ( A ) ? NP -c PTime L ( A ) = ∅ ? linear-time linear-time ExpTime -c |L ( A ) | ∈ N ? ExpTime -c PTime PTime L ( A ) = T ( Σ ) ? ExpTime -c undecidable undecidable L ( A ) ⊆ L ( B ) ? ExpTime -c undecidable undecidable L ( � i A i ) = ∅ ? ExpTime -c ExpTime -c ExpTime -c (a) SAT solver approach: [Héam et al., 2010]. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 43 / 24

  78. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References TA versus RTA versus TA = Closure, Complexity and Decidability RTA ( p ≅ p ) TA = TA ∪ PTime PTime PTime ∩ PTime ExpTime ExpTime ∅ ∅ ¬ ExpTime NP -c (a) t ∈ L ( A ) ? NP -c PTime L ( A ) = ∅ ? linear-time linear-time ExpTime-c |L ( A ) | ∈ N ? PTime ExpTime-c PTime L ( A ) = T ( Σ ) ? ExpTime -c undecidable undecidable L ( A ) ⊆ L ( B ) ? ExpTime -c undecidable undecidable L ( � i A i ) = ∅ ? ExpTime -c ExpTime -c ExpTime -c (a) SAT solver approach: [Héam et al., 2010]. Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 43 / 24

  79. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References TA = versus TA = k Restriction on the kind of constraints: Rigid Automata (RTA) Same expressive power as TA = Less compact representations Linear emptiness / finiteness tests, vs. ExpTime -complete Applications: [Jacquemard et al., 2009, Vacher, 2010] What of the number of constraints? TA = k A = � Σ, Q, F, ∆, ≅ � : TA = A � Σ, Q, F, ∆, ≅ � ≅ such that Card ( ≅ ) � k Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 44 / 24

  80. Preliminaries LTL Checking Bounded TAGE Other Works Appendices References Expressive Power The Separation Languages L = ( ℓ k ) k ∈ N [Hugot, 2013] k � A i ⊎ { σ/ 3 , ⊥ / 0 } A i = { a i , b i / 0 , f i , g i / 2 } i = 1 ℓ 0 = { ⊥ } ∀ k � 1, ℓ k = { σ ( u, u, t k − 1 ) | u ∈ T ( A k ) , t k − 1 ∈ ℓ k − 1 } u i ∈ T ( A i ) ∀ i σ u k u k σ u k − 1 u k − 1 σ u 1 u 1 ⊥ , Tree (Not Quite) Regular Model-Checking Vincent HUGOT Ph.D. Defence 45 / 24

Recommend

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Efficiently tackling the Emptiness Problem for Tree

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Efficiently tackling the Emptiness Problem for Tree

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Efficiently tackling the Emptiness Problem for Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot, Olga Kouchnarenko {pcheam,okouchnarenko}@lifc.univ-fcomte.fr,

1.31k views • 81 slides
Tree Automata with Constraints and Tree Homomorphisms Carles Creus L opez under the

Tree Automata with Constraints and Tree Homomorphisms Carles Creus L opez under the

Tree Automata with Constraints and Tree Homomorphisms Carles Creus L opez under the direction of Guillem Godoy Balil Departament de Cincies de la Computaci Height and Equality Constraints HOM in EXPTIME Global Reflexive Disequality

1.25k views • 88 slides
Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the Emptiness Problem for Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot, Olga Kouchnarenko

1.02k views • 91 slides
Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the

Algorithms for Tree Automata with Constraints Random Generation of Hard Instances of the Emptiness Problem for Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot, Olga Kouchnarenko

1.33k views • 97 slides
SAT Solvers for Queries over Tree Automata with Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot,

SAT Solvers for Queries over Tree Automata with Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot,

The SAT encoding Implementation and Experiments SAT Solvers for Queries over Tree Automata with Constraints Pierre-Cyrille Ham, Vincent Hugot, Olga Kouchnarenko {pcheam,okouchnarenko}@lifc.univ-fcomte.fr, vhugot@edu.univ-fcomte.fr

882 views • 59 slides
Multiple tree automata a new model of tree automata Gwendal Collet (TU Wien), Julien David (LIPN)

Multiple tree automata a new model of tree automata Gwendal Collet (TU Wien), Julien David (LIPN)

Multiple tree automata a new model of tree automata Gwendal Collet (TU Wien), Julien David (LIPN) S eminaire CALIN, 24 mars 2015 Outline Introduction to automata: definitions and motivation 1 Description of the model: Multiple Tree Automata

612 views • 45 slides
Modular Tree Automata Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr

Modular Tree Automata Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr

Modular Tree Automata Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr University of Copenhagen, Department of Computer Science paba@diku.dk 11th International Conference on Mathematics of Program Construction Madrid,

1.29k views • 97 slides
Applications of Tree Automata Theory Lecture I: Tree Automata Andreas Maletti Institute of

Applications of Tree Automata Theory Lecture I: Tree Automata Andreas Maletti Institute of

Applications of Tree Automata Theory Lecture I: Tree Automata Andreas Maletti Institute of Computer Science Universitt Leipzig, Germany on leave from: Institute for Natural Language Processing Universitt Stuttgart, Germany

1.78k views • 130 slides
Relating Tree Series Transducers and Weighted Tree Automata Andreas Maletti December 17, 2004

Relating Tree Series Transducers and Weighted Tree Automata Andreas Maletti December 17, 2004

Relating Tree Series Transducers and Weighted Tree Automata Andreas Maletti December 17, 2004 1. Motivation and Introductory Example 2. Semirings and DM-Monoids 3. Bottom-Up DM-Monoid Weighted Tree Automata 4. Establishing a Relationship 1

329 views • 22 slides
Tree Automata Geetam Chawla Stanly Samuel ATC Seminar 2018 Intro DTA Pumping Lemma

Tree Automata Geetam Chawla Stanly Samuel ATC Seminar 2018 Intro DTA Pumping Lemma

Tree Automata Geetam Chawla Stanly Samuel ATC Seminar 2018 Intro DTA Pumping Lemma Overview Tree-regular languages Some interesting results. NTA NTA vs DTA Introduction: Automata on words vs automata on

455 views • 17 slides
PLANC: Parallel Low Rank Approximations with Non-negativity Constraints Ramakrishnan Kannan,

PLANC: Parallel Low Rank Approximations with Non-negativity Constraints Ramakrishnan Kannan,

PLANC: Parallel Low Rank Approximations with Non-negativity Constraints Ramakrishnan Kannan, Michael Matheson, Grey Ballard, Srinivas Eswar , Koby Hayashi, Haesun Park Ph.D student, School of CSE Georgia Institute of Technology Advisors: Rich

484 views • 23 slides
Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr University of Copenhagen,

Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr University of Copenhagen,

Deriving Modular Recursion Schemes from Tree Automata Patrick Bahr University of Copenhagen, Department of Computer Science paba@diku.dk Computing Science Colloquium, Utrecht University, April 12th, 2012 Outline Tree Automata 1 Bottom-Up

1.37k views • 132 slides
Decision Tree and Automata Learning Stefan Edelkamp 1 Overview - Decision tree representation

Decision Tree and Automata Learning Stefan Edelkamp 1 Overview - Decision tree representation

Decision Tree and Automata Learning Stefan Edelkamp 1 Overview - Decision tree representation - Top Down Induction, Attribute Selection - Entropy, Information gain - ID3 learning algorithm - Overfitting - Continous, multi-valued, costly and

718 views • 33 slides
Unranked Tree Automata with Sibling Equalities and Disequalities Wong Karianto Christof Lding

Unranked Tree Automata with Sibling Equalities and Disequalities Wong Karianto Christof Lding

Unranked Tree Automata with Sibling Equalities and Disequalities Wong Karianto Christof Lding Lehrstuhl fr Informatik 7 RWTH Aachen ICALP 2007 Wrocaw, 913 July 2007 Motivations(1): Tree Automata with Subtree Equalities Finite

834 views • 35 slides
Modal -Calculus and Alternating Tree Automata Seminar Automata, Logics, and Infinite

Modal -Calculus and Alternating Tree Automata Seminar Automata, Logics, and Infinite

Department of Computer Science Institute for Theoretical Computer Science Modal -Calculus and Alternating Tree Automata Seminar Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games Patrick Bahr s0404888@inf.tu-dresden.de Dresden, February 1, 2008

461 views • 45 slides
Chapter 1: Constraints What are they, what do they do and what can I use them for. 1

Chapter 1: Constraints What are they, what do they do and what can I use them for. 1

Constraint Logic Programming Chapter 1: Constraints What are they, what do they do and what can I use them for. 1 Constraints What are constraints? Modelling problems Constraint solving Tree constraints Other constraint

205 views • 19 slides
Graph Automata Jan Leike July 2nd, 2012 Motivation We want an automata model that Motivation

Graph Automata Jan Leike July 2nd, 2012 Motivation We want an automata model that Motivation

Graph Automata Jan Leike July 2nd, 2012 Motivation We want an automata model that Motivation We want an automata model that operates on graphs, generalizes nested words and tree automata, and has some nice properties. Outline 1.

731 views • 44 slides
Tree Automata as Algebras: Minimisation and Determinisation Tobias Kapp e Jurriaan Rot Gerco

Tree Automata as Algebras: Minimisation and Determinisation Tobias Kapp e Jurriaan Rot Gerco

Tree Automata as Algebras: Minimisation and Determinisation Tobias Kapp e Jurriaan Rot Gerco van Heerdt Matteo Sammartino Alexandra Silva University College London June 3, 2019 1 / 17 DFAs: nice diagrams a b b a a b 2 / 17 Tree

639 views • 32 slides
Symbolic Verification of Programs with Pointers using Tree Automata Ji r Sim a

Symbolic Verification of Programs with Pointers using Tree Automata Ji r Sim a

Symbolic Verification of Programs with Pointers using Tree Automata Ji r Sim a cek Universit e Joseph Fourrier (France) Brno University of Technology (Czech Republic) 1 Ph.D. 1st year of doctoral degree programme at

377 views • 21 slides
Semantic Dependency Graph Parsing Using Tree Approximations eljko Agi Alexander Koller

Semantic Dependency Graph Parsing Using Tree Approximations eljko Agi Alexander Koller

Semantic Dependency Graph Parsing Using Tree Approximations eljko Agi Alexander Koller Stephan Oepen Center for Language Technology, University of Copenhagen Department of Linguistics, University of Potsdam

1.29k views • 32 slides
From Reasoning with Constraints to Mining Constraints: Multi-Objective Parameter Fitting in

From Reasoning with Constraints to Mining Constraints: Multi-Objective Parameter Fitting in

From Reasoning with Constraints to Mining Constraints: Multi-Objective Parameter Fitting in Parametric Probabilistic Hybrid Automata Martin Frnzle 1 joint work (in progress) with Alessandro Abate (Oxford University, UK), Sebastian Gerwinn

709 views • 55 slides
Timed automata with diagonal constraints B. Srivathsan Chennai Mathematical Institute, India In

Timed automata with diagonal constraints B. Srivathsan Chennai Mathematical Institute, India In

Timed automata with diagonal constraints B. Srivathsan Chennai Mathematical Institute, India In this lecture, we will consider timed automata that can additionally take guards of the form x y 5, z x > 20, etc. Such guards are

346 views • 5 slides
Weighted Tree Automata II. A Kleene theorem for wta over M-monoids Zolt an F ul op

Weighted Tree Automata II. A Kleene theorem for wta over M-monoids Zolt an F ul op

1 Weighted Tree Automata II. A Kleene theorem for wta over M-monoids Zolt an F ul op University of Szeged Department of Foundations of Computer Science fulop@inf.u-szeged.hu November 10, 2009 2 Contents Multioperator

550 views • 25 slides
Automata and Formal Languages II Tree Automata Peter Lammich SS 2015 1 / 161 Overview by

Automata and Formal Languages II Tree Automata Peter Lammich SS 2015 1 / 161 Overview by

Automata and Formal Languages II Tree Automata Peter Lammich SS 2015 1 / 161 Overview by Lecture Apr 14: Slide 3 Apr 21: Slide 2 Apr 28: Slide 4 May 5: Slide 50 May 12: Slide 56 May 19: Slide 64 May 26: Holiday

1.94k views • 161 slides

More recommend