اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAlgebra-based Synthesis of Loops and their Invariants (Invited Paper)
127
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Provably correct software is one of the key challenges in our softwaredriven society. While formal verification establishes the correctness of a given program, the result of program synthesis is a program which is correct by construction. In this paper we overview some of our results for both of these scenarios when analysing programs with loops. The class of loops we consider can be modelled by a system of linear recurrence equations with constant coefficients, called C-finite recurrences. We first describe an algorithmic approach for synthesising all polynomial equality invariants of such non-deterministic numeric single-path loops. By reverse engineering invariant synthesis, we then describe an automated method for synthesising program loops satisfying a given set of polynomial loop invariants. Our results have applications towards proving partial correctness of programs, compiler optimisation and generating number sequences from algebraic relations. This is a preprint that was invited for publication at VMCAI 2021.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
RedPRL is an experimental proof assistant based on Cartesian cubical computational type theory, a new type theory for higher-dimensional constructions inspired by homotopy type theory. In the style of Nuprl, RedPRL users employ tactics to establish b
ehavioral properties of cubical functional programs embodying the constructive content of proofs. Notably, RedPRL implements a two-level type theory, allowing an extensional, proof-irrelevant notion of exact equality to coexist with a higher-dimensional proof-relevant notion of paths.
Structural proof theory is praised for being a symbolic approach to reasoning and proofs, in which one can define schemas for reasoning steps and manipulate proofs as a mathematical structure. For this to be possible, proof systems must be designed a
s a set of rules such that proofs using those rules are correct by construction. Therefore, one must consider all ways these rules can interact and prove that they satisfy certain properties which makes them well-behaved. This is called the meta-theory of a proof system. Meta-theory proofs typically involve many cases on structures with lots of symbols. The majority of cases are usually quite similar, and when a proof fails, it might be because of a sub-case on a very specific configuration of rules. Developing these proofs by hand is tedious and error-prone, and their combinatorial nature suggests they could be automated. There are various approaches on how to automate, either partially or completely, meta-theory proofs. In this paper, I will present some techniques that I have been involved in for facilitating meta-theory reasoning.
A well-established approach to reasoning about loops during program analysis is to capture the effect of a loop by extracting recurrences from the loop; these express relationships between the values of variables, or program properties such as cost,
on successive loop iterations. Recurrence solvers are capable of computing closed forms for some recurrences, thus deriving precise relationships capturing the complete loop execution. However, many recurrences extracted from loops cannot be solved, due to their having multiple recursive cases or multiple arguments. In the literature, several techniques for approximating the solution of unsolvable recurrences have been proposed. The approach presented in this paper is to define transformations based on regular path expressions and loop counters that (i) transform multi-path loops to single-path loops, giving rise to recurrences with a single recursive case, and (ii) transform multi-argument recurrences to single-argument recurrences, thus enabling the use of recurrence solvers on the transformed recurrences. Using this approach, precise solutions can sometimes be obtained that are not obtained by approximation methods.
Proof assistants are getting more widespread use in research and industry to provide certified and independently checkable guarantees about theories, designs, systems and implementations. However, proof assistant implementations themselves are seldom
verified, although they take a major share of the trusted code base in any such certification effort. In this area, proof assistants based on Higher-Order Logic enjoy stronger guarantees, as self-certified implementations have been available for some years. One cause of this difference is the inherent complexity of dependent type theories together with their extensions with inductive types, universe polymorphism and complex sort systems, and the gap between theory on paper and practical implementations in efficient programming languages. MetaCoq is a collaborative project that aims to tackle these difficulties to provide the first fully-certified realistic implementation of a type checker for the full calculus underlying the Coq proof assistant. To achieve this, we refined the sometimes blurry, if not incorrect, specification and implementation of the system. We show how theoretical tools from this community such as bidirectional type-checking, Tait-Martin-Lof/Takahashis confluence proof technique and monadic and dependently-typed programming can help construct the following artefacts: a specification of Coqs syntax and type theory, the Polymorphic Cumulative Calculus of (Co)-Inductive Constructions (PCUIC); a monad for the manipulation of raw syntax and interaction with the Coq system; a verification of PCUICs metatheory, whose main results are the confluence of reduction, type preservation and principality of typing; a realistic, correct and complete type-checker for PCUIC; a sound type and proof erasure procedure from PCUIC to untyped lambda-calculus, i.e., the core of the extraction mechanism of Coq.
We present a process algebra based approach to formalize the interactions of computing devices such as the representation of policies and the resolution of conflicts. As an example we specify how promises may be used in coming to an agreement regardi
ng a simple though practical transportation problem.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
