Abstract Analysis of Universal Properties for tccp

[EN] The Timed Concurrent Constraint Language (tccp) is a time extension of the concurrent constraint paradigm of Saraswat. tccp was defined to model reactive systems, where infinite behaviors arise naturally. In previous works, a semantic framework and abstract diagnosis method for the language has been defined. On the basis of that semantic framework, this paper proposes an abstract semantics that, together with a widening operator, is suitable for the definition of different analyses for tccp programs. The abstract semantics is correct and can be represented as a finite graph where each node represents a hypothetical computational step of the program containing approximated information for the variables. The widening operator allows us to guarantee the convergence of the abstract fixpoint computation.This work has been supported by the Andalusian Excellence Project P11-TIC7659. This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO under grant TIN 2013-45732-C4-1-P (DAMAS) and by Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEOII/2015/013Comini, M.; Gallardo Melgarejo, MDM.; Titolo, L.; Villanueva, A. (2015). Abstract Analysis of Universal Properties for tccp. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27436-2_10S163178Alpuente, M., Gallardo, M.M., Pimentel, E., Villanueva, A.: A semantic framework for the abstract model checking of tccp programs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 346(1), 58–95 (2005)Bagnara, R., Hill, P.M., Ricci, E., Zaffanella, E.: Precise widening operators for convex polyhedra. Sci Comput. Program. 58(1–2), 28–56 (2005)Comini, M., Titolo, L., Villanueva, A.: Abstract diagnosis for timed concurrent constraint programs. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 11(4–5), 487–502 (2011)Comini, M., Titolo, L., Villanueva, A.: A condensed goal-independent bottom-up fixpoint modeling the behavior of tccp. Technical report, DSIC, Universitat Politècnica de València (2013). http://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/34328Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract Interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Los Angeles, California, January 17–19, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York (1977)de Boer, F.S., Gabbrielli, M., Meo, M.C.: A timed concurrent constraint language. Inf. Comput. 161(1), 45–83 (2000)Falaschi, M. Gabbrielli, M., Marriott, K., Palamidessi, C.: Compositional analysis for concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 210–221. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Falaschi, M., Olarte, C., Palamidessi, C.: Abstract interpretation of temporal concurrent constraint programs. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. (TPLP) 15(3), 312–357 (2015)Falaschi, M., Villanueva, A.: Automatic verification of timed concurrent constraint programs. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 6(3), 265–300 (2006)Saraswat, V.A.: Concurrent Constraint Programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Zaffanella, E., Giacobazzi, R., Levi, G.: Abstracting synchronization in concurrent constraint programming. J. Funct. Log. Program. 6, 1997 (1997

A program analysis framework for tccp based on abstract interpretation

[EN] The timed concurrent constraint language (tccp) is a timed extension of the concurrent constraint paradigm. tccp was defined to model reactive systems, where infinite behaviors arise naturally. In previous works, a semantic framework and abstract diagnosis method for the language have been defined. On the basis of that semantic framework, this paper proposes an abstract semantics that, together with a widening operator, is suitable for the definition of different analyses for tccp programs. The abstract semantics is correct and can be represented as a finite graph where each node represents a hypothetical (abstract) computational step of the program. The widening operator allows us to guarantee the convergence of the abstract fixpoint computation.This author has been supported by the Andalusian Excellence Project P11-TIC-7659. This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO under grants TIN 2015-69175-C4-1-R and TIN 2013-45732-C4-1-P and by Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEOII/2015/013Comini, M.; Gallardo, M.; Titolo, L.; Villanueva, A. (2017). A program analysis framework for tccp based on abstract interpretation. Formal Aspects of Computing. 29(3):531-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-016-0409-8S531557293Alpuente M, Gallardo MM, Pimentel E, Villanueva A (2006) A semantic framework for the abstract model checking of tccp programs. Theor Comput Scie 346(1): 58–95Bagnara R, Hill PM., Ricci E, Zaffanella E (2005) Precise widening operators for convex polyhedra. Sci Comput Program 58(1–2):28–56Cousot P, Cousot R (1977) Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on principles of programming languages, Los Angeles, California, January 17–19. ACM Press, New York, pp 238–252Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Jha S, Lu Y, Veith H (2000) Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: CAV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1855. Springer, pp 154–169Comini M, Gallardo MM, Titolo L, Villanueva A (2015) Abstract Analysis of Universal Properties for tccp. In: Falaschi M (ed) Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation, 25th International Symposium, LOPSTR 2015. Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9527. Springer, pp 163–178Comini M, Titolo L, Villanueva A (2011) Abstract diagnosis for timed concurrent constraint programs. Theory Pract Logic Programm 11(4-5):487–502Comini M, Titolo L, Villanueva A (2013) A condensed goal-independent bottom-up fixpoint modeling the behavior of tccp. Technical report, DSIC, Universitat Politècnica de València. http://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/34328de Boer FS, Gabbrielli M, Meo MC (2000) A timed concurrent constraint language. Inf Comput 161(1): 45–83Falaschi M, Gabbrielli M, Marriott K, Palamidessi C (1993) Compositional analysis for concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the eighth annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 210–221Falaschi M, Olarte C, Palamidessi C (2015) Abstract interpretation of temporal concurrent constraint programs. Theory and Pract Logic Program (TPLP) 15(3): 312–357Falaschi M, Villanueva A (2006) Automatic verification of timed concurrent constraint programs. Theory Pract Logic Program 6(3): 265–300Gallardo MM, Merino P, Pimentel E (2002) Refinement of LTL formulas for abstract model checking. In: Static analysis, 9th international symposium, SAS 2002, Madrid, Spain, September 17–20, 2002, Proceedings, pp 395–410Saraswat VA (1993) Concurrent constraint programming. The MIT Press, CambridgeSaraswat VA, Rinard M, Panangaden P (1991) The semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp 333–352Zaffanella E, Giacobazzi R, Levi G (1997) Abstracting synchronization in concurrent constraint programming. J Funct Logic Program (6

A compositional Semantics for CHR

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) are a committed-choice declarative language which has been designed for writing constraint solvers. A CHR program consists of multi-headed guarded rules which allow one to rewrite constraints into simpler ones until a solved form is reached. CHR has received a considerable attention, both from the practical and from the theoretical side. Nevertheless, due the use of multi-headed clauses, there are several aspects of the CHR semantics which have not been clarified yet. In particular, no compositional semantics for CHR has been defined so far. In this paper we introduce a fix-point semantics which characterizes the input/output behavior of a CHR program and which is and-compositional, that is, which allows to retrieve the semantics of a conjunctive query from the semantics of its components. Such a semantics can be used as a basis to define incremental and modular analysis and verification tools

Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

An interactive semantics of logic programming

We apply to logic programming some recently emerging ideas from the field of reduction-based communicating systems, with the aim of giving evidence of the hidden interactions and the coordination mechanisms that rule the operational machinery of such a programming paradigm. The semantic framework we have chosen for presenting our results is tile logic, which has the advantage of allowing a uniform treatment of goals and observations and of applying abstract categorical tools for proving the results. As main contributions, we mention the finitary presentation of abstract unification, and a concurrent and coordinated abstract semantics consistent with the most common semantics of logic programming. Moreover, the compositionality of the tile semantics is guaranteed by standard results, as it reduces to check that the tile systems associated to logic programs enjoy the tile decomposition property. An extension of the approach for handling constraint systems is also discussed.Comment: 42 pages, 24 figure, 3 tables, to appear in the CUP journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

On the Expressive Power of Multiple Heads in CHR

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a committed-choice declarative language which has been originally designed for writing constraint solvers and which is nowadays a general purpose language. CHR programs consist of multi-headed guarded rules which allow to rewrite constraints into simpler ones until a solved form is reached. Many empirical evidences suggest that multiple heads augment the expressive power of the language, however no formal result in this direction has been proved, so far. In the first part of this paper we analyze the Turing completeness of CHR with respect to the underneath constraint theory. We prove that if the constraint theory is powerful enough then restricting to single head rules does not affect the Turing completeness of the language. On the other hand, differently from the case of the multi-headed language, the single head CHR language is not Turing powerful when the underlying signature (for the constraint theory) does not contain function symbols. In the second part we prove that, no matter which constraint theory is considered, under some reasonable assumptions it is not possible to encode the CHR language (with multi-headed rules) into a single headed language while preserving the semantics of the programs. We also show that, under some stronger assumptions, considering an increasing number of atoms in the head of a rule augments the expressive power of the language. These results provide a formal proof for the claim that multiple heads augment the expressive power of the CHR language.Comment: v.6 Minor changes, new formulation of definitions, changed some details in the proof

A general theory of action languages

We present a general theory of action-based languages as a paradigm, for the description, of those computational systems which include elements of concurrency and networking, and extend this approach to describe dist.ributed systems and also t,o describe the interaction of a system, with an environment. As part of this approach we introduce the Action Language as a common model for the class of nondeterministic concurrent programming languages and define its intensional and interaction semantics in terrors of continuous transformation of environment behavior. This semantics i.s specialized for programs with stores, and extended to describe distributed computations