Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExplaining Counterexamples with Giant-Step Assertion Checking
92
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Identifying the cause of a proof failure during deductive verification of programs is hard: it may be due to an incorrectness in the program, an incompleteness in the program annotations, or an incompleteness of the prover. The changes needed to resolve a proof failure depend on its category, but the prover cannot provide any help on the categorisation. When using an SMT solver to discharge a proof obligation, that solver can propose a model from a failed attempt, from which a possible counterexample can be derived. But the counterexample may be invalid, in which case it may add more confusion than help. To check the validity of a counterexample and to categorise the proof failure, we propose the comparison between the run-time assertion-checking (RAC) executions under two different semantics, using the counterexample as an oracle. The first RAC execution follows the normal program semantics, and a violation of a program annotation indicates an incorrectness in the program. The second RAC execution follows a novel giant-step semantics that does not execute loops nor function calls but instead retrieves return values and values of modified variables from the oracle. A violation of the program annotations only observed under giant-step execution characterises an incompleteness of the program annotations. We implemented this approach in the Why3 platform for deductive program verification and evaluated it using examples from prior literature.
rate research
Read More
Ong has shown that the modal mu-calculus model checking problem (equivalently, the alternating parity tree automaton (APT) acceptance problem) of possibly-infinite ranked trees generated by order-n recursion schemes is n-EXPTIME complete. We consider two subclasses of APT and investigate the complexity of the respective acceptance problems. The main results are that, for APT with a single priority, the problem is still n-EXPTIME complete; whereas, for APT with a disjunctive transition function, the problem is (n-1)-EXPTIME complete. This study was motivated by Kobayashis recent work showing that the resource usage verification of functional programs can be reduced to the model checking of recursion schemes. As an application, we show that the resource usage verification problem is (n-1)-EXPTIME complete.
Assertion checking is an invaluable programmers tool for finding many classes of errors or verifying their absence in dynamic languages such as Prolog. For Prolog programmers this means being able to have relevant properties such as modes, types, determinacy, non-failure, sharing, constraints, cost, etc., checked and errors flagged without having to actually run the program. Such global static analysis tools are arguably most useful the earlier they are used in the software development cycle, and fast response times are essential for interactive use. Triggering a full and precise semantic analysis of a software project every time a change is made can be prohibitively expensive. In our static analysis and verification framework this challenge is addressed through a combination of modular and incremental (context- and path-sensitive) analysis that is responsive to program edits, at different levels of granularity. We describe how the combination of this framework within an integrated development environment (IDE) takes advantage of such incrementality to achieve a high level of reactivity when reflecting analysis and verification results back as colorings and tooltips directly on the program text -- the tools VeriFly mode. The concrete implementation that we describe is Emacs-based and reuses in part off-the-shelf on-the-fly syntax checking facilities (flycheck). We believe that similar extensions are also reproducible with low effort in other mature development environments. Our initial experience with the tool shows quite promising results, with low latency times that provide early, continuous, and precise assertion checking and other semantic feedback to programmers during the development process. The tool supports Prolog natively, as well as other languages by semantic transformation into Horn clauses. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) is a language scheme for combining two declarative paradigms: constraint solving and logic programming. Concurrent Constraint Programming (CCP) is a declarative model for concurrency where agents interact by telling and asking constraints in a shared store. In a previous paper, we developed a framework for dynamic slicing of CCP where the user first identifies that a (partial) computation is wrong. Then, she marks (selects) some parts of the final state corresponding to the data (constraints) and processes that she wants to study more deeply. An automatic process of slicing begins, and the partial computation is depurated by removing irrelevant information. In this paper we give two major contributions. First, we extend the framework to CLP, thus generalizing the previous work. Second, we provide an assertion language suitable for both, CCP and CLP, which allows the user to specify some properties of the computations in her program. If a state in a computation does not satisfy an assertion then some wrong information is identified and an automatic slicing process can start. This way we make one step further towards automatizing the slicing process. We show that our framework can be integrated with the previous semi-automatic one, giving the user more choices and flexibility. We show by means of examples and experiments the usefulness of our approach.
Verifying whether a procedure is observationally pure is useful in many software engineering scenarios. An observationally pure procedure always returns the same value for the same argument, and thus mimics a mathematical function. The problem is challenging when procedures use private mutable global variables, e.g., for memoization of frequently returned answers, and when they involve recursion. We present a novel verification approach for this problem. Our approach involves encoding the procedures code as a formula that is a disjunction of path constraints, with the recursive calls being replaced in the formula with references to a mathematical function symbol. Then, a theorem prover is invoked to check whether the formula that has been constructed agrees with the function symbol referred to above in terms of input-output behavior for all arguments. We evaluate our approach on a set of realistic examples, using the Boogie intermediate language and theorem prover. Our evaluation shows that the invariants are easy to construct manually, and that our approach is effective at verifying observationally pure procedures.
We revisit the symbolic verification of Markov chains with respect to finite horizon reachability properties. The prevalent approach iteratively computes step-bounded state reachability probabilities. By contrast, recent advances in probabilistic inference suggest symbolically representing all horizon-length paths through the Markov chain. We ask whether this perspective advances the state-of-the-art in probabilistic model checking. First, we formally describe both approaches in order to highlight their key differences. Then, using these insights we develop Rubicon, a tool that transpiles Prism models to the probabilistic inference tool Dice. Finally, we demonstrate better scalability compared to probabilistic model checkers on selected benchmarks. All together, our results suggest that probabilistic inference is a valuable addition to the probabilistic model checking portfolio -- with Rubicon as a first step towards integrating both perspectives.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
