Detailed Information on Publication Record
2015
Counterexample Explanation by Learning Small Strategies in Markov Decision Processes
BRÁZDIL, Tomáš, Krishnendu CHATTERJEE, Martin CHMELÍK, Andreas FELLNER, Jan KŘETÍNSKÝ et. al.Basic information
Original name
Counterexample Explanation by Learning Small Strategies in Markov Decision Processes
Authors
BRÁZDIL, Tomáš (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Krishnendu CHATTERJEE (356 India), Martin CHMELÍK (203 Czech Republic), Andreas FELLNER (40 Austria) and Jan KŘETÍNSKÝ (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution)
Edition
Cham, Computer Aided Verification: 27th International Conference, CAV 2015, p. 158-177, 20 pp. 2015
Publisher
Springer
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Stať ve sborníku
Field of Study
10201 Computer sciences, information science, bioinformatics
Country of publisher
Germany
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Publication form
printed version "print"
Impact factor
Impact factor: 0.402 in 2005
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14330/15:00080918
Organization unit
Faculty of Informatics
ISBN
978-3-319-21689-8
ISSN
UT WoS
000364182900010
Keywords in English
stochastic systems; verification; machine learning; decision tree
Tags
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 28/4/2016 14:21, RNDr. Pavel Šmerk, Ph.D.
Abstract
V originále
For deterministic systems, a counterexample to a property can simply be an error trace, whereas counterexamples in probabilistic systems are necessarily more complex. For instance, a set of erroneous traces with a sufficient cumulative probability mass can be used. Since these are too large objects to understand and manipulate, compact representations such as subchains have been considered. In the case of probabilistic systems with non-determinism, the situation is even more complex. While a subchain for a given strategy (or scheduler, resolving non-determinism) is a straightforward choice, we take a different approach. Instead, we focus on the strategy itself, and extract the most important decisions it makes, and present its succinct representation. The key tools we employ to achieve this are (1) introducing a concept of importance of a state w.r.t. the strategy, and (2) learning using decision trees. There are three main consequent advantages of our approach. Firstly, it exploits the quantitative information on states, stressing the more important decisions. Secondly, it leads to a greater variability and degree of freedom in representing the strategies. Thirdly, the representation uses a self-explanatory data structure. In summary, our approach produces more succinct and more explainable strategies, as opposed to e.g. binary decision diagrams. Finally, our experimental results show that we can extract several rules describing the strategy even for very large systems that do not fit in memory, and based on the rules explain the erroneous behaviour.
Links
GBP202/12/G061, research and development project |
|