On the Expressive Power of Schedulers in Distributed Probabilistic Systems

In this paper, we consider several subclasses of distributed schedulers and we investigate the ability of these subclasses to attain worst-case probabilities. Based on previous work, we consider the class of distributed schedulers, and we prove that randomization adds no extra power to distributed schedulers when trying to attain the supremum probability of any measurable set, thus showing that the subclass of deterministic schedulers suffices to attain the worst-case probability. Traditional schedulers are a particular case of distributed schedulers. So, since our result holds for any measurable set, our proof generalizes the well-known result that randomization adds no extra power to schedulers when trying to maximize the probability of an @w-regular language. However, non-Markovian schedulers are needed to attain supremum probabilities in distributed systems. We develop another class of schedulers (the strongly distributed schedulers) that restricts the nondeterminism concerning the order in which components execute. We compare this class against previous approaches in the same direction, showing that our definition is an important contribution. For this class, we show that randomized and non-Markovian schedulers are needed to attain worst-case probabilities. We also discuss the subclass of finite-memory schedulers, showing the intractability of the model checking problem for these schedulers.

[1]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Compositional Methods for Probabilistic Systems , 2001, CONCUR.

[2]  Scott A. Smolka,et al.  Composition and Behaviors of Probabilistic I/O Automata , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Switched PIOA: Parallel composition via distributed scheduling , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Pedro R. D'Argenio,et al.  On the verification of probabilistic I/O automata with unspecified rates , 2009, SAC '09.

[5]  Christel Baier,et al.  LiQuor: A tool for Qualitative and Quantitative Linear Time analysis of Reactive Systems , 2006, Third International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems - (QEST'06).

[6]  Ling Cheung,et al.  Reconciling nondeterministic and probabilistic choices , 2006 .

[7]  David Chaum,et al.  The dining cryptographers problem: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability , 1988, Journal of Cryptology.

[8]  Bernhard Steffen,et al.  Reactive, Generative and Stratified Models of Probabilistic Processes , 1995, Inf. Comput..

[9]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  On Nash Equilibria in Stochastic Games , 2004, CSL.

[10]  Paola Lecca,et al.  A new probabilistic generative model of parameter inference in biochemical networks , 2009, SAC '09.

[11]  Pedro R. D'Argenio,et al.  Quantitative Model Checking Revisited: Neither Decidable Nor Approximable , 2007, FORMATS.

[12]  Andrea Bianco,et al.  Model Checking of Probabalistic and Nondeterministic Systems , 1995, FSTTCS.

[13]  L. D. Alfaro The Verification of Probabilistic Systems Under Memoryless Partial-Information Policies is Hard , 1999 .

[14]  Roberto Segala,et al.  Modeling and verification of randomized distributed real-time systems , 1996 .

[15]  Catuscia Palamidessi,et al.  A Framework for Analyzing Probabilistic Protocols and Its Application to the Partial Secrets Exchange , 2005, TGC.

[16]  W. Browder,et al.  Annals of Mathematics , 1889 .

[17]  Andrew Hinton,et al.  PRISM: A Tool for Automatic Verification of Probabilistic Systems , 2006, TACAS.