This a bit of a weird corner-case. Consider P>0[ s=0 ] or P=?[ s=0 ].
Those are not PCTL-formula (the P-operator requires a temporal
operator) and they are not particularly useful, as we just need to
evaluate the state formula and the threshold (or turn the satisfaction
set into a quantitative result).
They can be dealt with by the LTL machinery (DA-construction, product,
...), but this is quite expensive (and not implemented yet for all
engines). So, we just deal with it by special treatment.
Conflicts:
src/storm/modelchecker/AbstractModelChecker.cpp
src/storm/modelchecker/AbstractModelChecker.h
It looks like you may be committing a cherry-pick.
If this is not correct, please run
git update-ref -d CHERRY_PICK_HEAD
and try again.
- Every PRCTL formula that worked before works now and behaves in the same way. One exception:
|- Formulas of the type Pmin<0.5[Phi] and Rmin<0.5[Psi] result in a parsing error, as the comparison operator already implies the scheduler to be used.
| Also, the modelchecker now actually uses the comparison operator in order to choose the correct scheduler for MDPs.
Former-commit-id: d942d18e7e
- Fixed similar undefined behavior for the MarkovAutomaton Csl modelchecker.
Next up: Make necessary changes to the formula parsers.
Former-commit-id: e8765fe58b
- General function of the filters: The filter as an abstraction layer between the control flow and the formula/modelchecker.
|- It has a formula as child but is not a formula itself.
|- It invokes the modelchecking process on the child formula and manipulates the result.
|- For the purpose of result manipulation it keeps a list of filter actions.
|- Each action manipulates the result in a certain way. For example: It returns only the results for states 25 to 140.
|- Furthermore the printing of the result to standard out and the log is no longer done by the modelchecker but by the filter.
|- That way the tasks of each class becomes more clear: Modelchecker to compute the results, filter to prepare the computed results for write out.
- Battled with a major design problem: How to integrate the optimizing operator (aka. min or max probs for non-det. models) into the filter scheme.
|- It is now integrated as a separate filter action, which does not touch the results but hold the flag determining whether to maximize or to minimize.
|- This action must be the innermost filter action (i.e. the first list entry) to have any effect.
|- This is combined with a special fuction of the modelchecker that manipulates the mutable minimizationStack calculates the modelchecking result and resets the stack to its original state.
|- This way the information whether to min, to max or not to try is managed by the filter and propagated as needed.
|- Remark: Fixed a major risk of undefined behavior in the SparseMdpPrctlModelChecker.
|- If the formula to be checked did not have a NoBoundFormula as root then the minimumOperatorStack would be empty and minimumOperatorStack.top() would result in undefined behavior.
|- Added tests whether the stack is empty before trying to read out the possibly non existant top element.
Next up: Implement similar filters for LTL and CSL and try to get it compiled.
Former-commit-id: 577998e027
hannah
Joachim Klein
Tim Quatmann
Sebastian Junges
TimQu
dehnert
David_Korzeniewski
masawei
PBerger