Synthesis From Incompatible Specifications

Systems are often specified using multiple requirements on their behavior. In practice, these requirements can be contradictory. The classical approach to specification, verification, and synthesis demands more detailed specifications that resolve any contradictions in the requirements. These detailed specifications are usually large, cumbersome, and hard to maintain or modify. In contrast, quantitative frameworks allow the formalization of the intuitive idea that what is desired is an implementation that comes "closest" to satisfying the mutually incompatible requirements, according to a measure of fit that can be defined by the requirements engineer. One flexible framework for quantifying how "well" an implementation satisfies a specification is offered by simulation distances that are parameterized by an error model. We introduce this framework, study its properties, and provide an algorithmic solution for the following quantitative synthesis question: given two (or more) behavioral requirements specified by possibly incompatible finite-state machines, and an error model, find the finite-state implementation that minimizes the maximal simulation distance to the given requirements. Furthermore, we generalize the framework to handle in finite alphabets (for example, real-valued domains). We also demonstrate how quantitative specifications based on simulation distances might lead to smaller and easier to modify specifications. Finally, we illustrate our approach using case studies on error correcting codes and scheduler synthesis.