  Quantitative analysis of computing systems is an emerging area in automated
formal analysis. Such properties address aspects such as costs and rewards,
quality measures, resource consumption, distance metrics, etc.
  Existing solutions for problems in quantitative analysis face two challenges,
namely lack of generalizability and separation-of-techniques. Lack of
generalizability refers to the issue that solution approaches are specialized
to cost model. Different cost models deploy such disparate algorithms that
there is no transfer of knowledge from one cost model to another.
Separation-of-techniques refers to the inherent dichotomy in solving problems
in quantitative analysis. Most algorithms comprise of a structural phase which
reasons about the structure of the quantitative system(s) using techniques from
automata or graphs, and a numerical phase, which reasons about the quantitative
dimension/cost model using numerical methods. The techniques used in both
phases are so unlike each other that they are difficult to combine, thereby
impacting scalability.
  This thesis contributes to a novel framework that addresses these challenges.
The introduced framework, called comparator automata or comparators in short,
builds on automata-theoretic foundations to generalize across a variety of cost
models. Comparators enable automata-based methods in the numerical phase, hence
eradicating the dependence on numerical methods. In doing so, comparators are
able to integrate the structural and numerical phases. On the theoretical
front, we demonstrate that these have the advantage of generalizable results,
and yield complexity-theoretic improvements over a range of problems in
quantitative analysis. On the empirical front, we demonstrate that
comparator-based solutions render more efficient, scalable, and robust
performance, and are able to integrate quantitative with qualitative
objectives.
