No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Converging from branching to linear metrics on Markov chains
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 July 2017
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
We study two well-known linear-time metrics on Markov chains (MCs), namely, the strong and strutter trace distances. Our interest in these metrics is motivated by their relation to the probabilistic linear temporal logic (LTL)-model checking problem: we prove that they correspond to the maximal differences in the probability of satisfying the same LTL and LTL−X (LTL without next operator) formulas, respectively.
The threshold problem for these distances (whether their value exceeds a given threshold) is NP-hard and not known to be decidable. Nevertheless, we provide an approximation schema where each lower and upper approximant is computable in polynomial time in the size of the MC.
The upper approximants are bisimilarity-like pseudometrics (hence, branching-time distances) that converge point-wise to the linear-time metrics. This convergence is interesting in itself, because it reveals a non-trivial relation between branching and linear-time metric-based semantics that does not hold in equivalence-based semantics.
Information
- Type
- Paper
- Information
- Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 29 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue: Best Papers Presented at ICTAC 2015 , January 2019 , pp. 3 - 37
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Larsen, K.G. and Mardare, R. (2013). On-the-fly exact computation of bisimilarity distances. In: TACAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7795, 1–15.Google Scholar
Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Larsen, K.G. and Mardare, R. (2015). On the total variation distance of semi-Markov chains. In: FoSSaCS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9034, 185–199.Google Scholar
Baier, C., Engelen, B. and Majster-Cederbaum, M.E. (2000). Deciding bisimilarity and similarity for probabilistic processes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 60 (1) 187–231.Google Scholar
Chen, T. and Kiefer, S. (2014). On the total variation distance of labelled Markov chains. In: CSL-LICS'14, ACM, 33:1–33:10.Google Scholar
Chen, D., van Breugel, F. and Worrell, J. (2012). On the complexity of computing probabilistic bisimilarity. In: FoSSaCS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7213, Springer, 437–451.Google Scholar
Cortes, C., Mohri, M. and Rastogi, A. (2007). Lp distance and equivalence of probabilistic automata. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 18 (04) 761–779.Google Scholar
Courcoubetis, C. and Yannakakis, M. (1990). Markov decision processes and regular events. In: ICALP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 443, Springer, 336–349.Google Scholar
de Alfaro, L., Faella, M. and Stoelinga, M. (2004). Linear and branching metrics for quantitative transition systems. In: ICALP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3142, 97–109.Google Scholar
Desharnais, J., Gupta, V., Jagadeesan, R. and Panangaden, P. (1999). Metrics for labeled Markov systems. In: CONCUR, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1664, Springer, 258–273.Google Scholar
Desharnais, J., Gupta, V., Jagadeesan, R. and Panangaden, P. (2004). Metrics for labelled Markov processes. Theoretical Compututer Science 318 (3) 323–354.Google Scholar
Desharnais, J., Jagadeesan, R., Gupta, V. and Panangaden, P. (2002). The metric analogue of weak bisimulation for probabilistic processes. In: LICS, IEEE Computer Society, 413–422.Google Scholar
Dunford, N. and Schwartz, J.T. (1988). Linear Operators, Part 1, General Theory. Wiley Classic Library, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Ferns, N., Panangaden, P. and Precup, D. (2004). Metrics for finite Markov decision processes. In: UAI, AUAI Press, 162–169.Google Scholar
Ferns, N., Precup, D. and Knight, S. (2014). Bisimulation for Markov decision processes through families of functional expressions. In: Breugel, F. V., Kashefi, E., Palamidessi, C. and Rutten, J. (eds.) Horizons of the Mind. A Tribute to Prakash Panangaden, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8464, 319–342.Google Scholar
Fu, H. (2012). Computing game metrics on Markov decision processes. In: ICALP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7392, 227–238.Google Scholar
Larsen, K.G. and Skou, A. (1991). Bisimulation through probabilistic testing. Information and Computation 94 (1) 1–28.Google Scholar
Lindvall, T. (1992). Lectures on the Coupling Method. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Lyngsø, R.B. and Pedersen, C.N.S. (2002). The consensus string problem and the complexity of comparing hidden Markov models. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 65 (3) 545–569.Google Scholar
Mio, M. (2014). Upper-expectation bisimilarity and Łukasiewicz μ-calculus. In: FoSSaCS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8412, 335–350.Google Scholar
Paige, R. and Tarjan, R.E. (1987). Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 16 (6) 973–989.Google Scholar
Pnueli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In: SFCS, IEEE Computer Society, 46–57.Google Scholar
Vardi, M.Y. (1985). Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Portland, Oregon, USA, 21–23 October 1985, IEEE Computer Society, 327–338.Google Scholar
Vardi, M.Y. (1999). Probabilistic linear-time model checking: An overview of the automata-theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of the Formal Methods for Real-Time and Probabilistic Systems, 5th International AMAST Workshop, ARTS'99, Bamberg, Germany, May 26–28 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1601, Springer, 265–276.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 4
- Cited by