Program transformation for development, verification, and synthesis of programs

This paper briefly describes the use of the program transformation methodology for the development of correct and efficient programs. In particular, we will refer to the case of constraint logic programs and, through some examples, we will show how by program transformation, one can improve, synthesize, and verify programs

Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm

Transformations of CCP programs

We introduce a transformation system for concurrent constraint programming (CCP). We define suitable applicability conditions for the transformations which guarantee that the input/output CCP semantics is preserved also when distinguishing deadlocked computations from successful ones and when considering intermediate results of (possibly) non-terminating computations. The system allows us to optimize CCP programs while preserving their intended meaning: In addition to the usual benefits that one has for sequential declarative languages, the transformation of concurrent programs can also lead to the elimination of communication channels and of synchronization points, to the transformation of non-deterministic computations into deterministic ones, and to the crucial saving of computational space. Furthermore, since the transformation system preserves the deadlock behavior of programs, it can be used for proving deadlock freeness of a given program wrt a class of queries. To this aim it is sometimes sufficient to apply our transformations and to specialize the resulting program wrt the given queries in such a way that the obtained program is trivially deadlock free.Comment: To appear in ACM TOPLA

Program Transformation for Development, Verification, and Synthesis of Software

In this paper we briefly describe the use of the program transformation methodology for the development of correct and efficient programs. We will consider, in particular, the case of the transformation and the development of constraint logic programs

Proving theorems by program transformation

In this paper we present an overview of the unfold/fold proof method, a method for proving theorems about programs, based on program transformation. As a metalanguage for specifying programs and program properties we adopt constraint logic programming (CLP), and we present a set of transformation rules (including the familiar unfolding and folding rules) which preserve the semantics of CLP programs. Then, we show how program transformation strategies can be used, similarly to theorem proving tactics, for guiding the application of the transformation rules and inferring the properties to be proved. We work out three examples: (i) the proof of predicate equivalences, applied to the verification of equality between CCS processes, (ii) the proof of first order formulas via an extension of the quantifier elimination method, and (iii) the proof of temporal properties of infinite state concurrent systems, by using a transformation strategy that performs program specialization

Verifying Monadic Second-Order Properties of Graph Programs

The core challenge in a Hoare- or Dijkstra-style proof system for graph programs is in defining a weakest liberal precondition construction with respect to a rule and a postcondition. Previous work addressing this has focused on assertion languages for first-order properties, which are unable to express important global properties of graphs such as acyclicity, connectedness, or existence of paths. In this paper, we extend the nested graph conditions of Habel, Pennemann, and Rensink to make them equivalently expressive to monadic second-order logic on graphs. We present a weakest liberal precondition construction for these assertions, and demonstrate its use in verifying non-local correctness specifications of graph programs in the sense of Habel et al.Comment: Extended version of a paper to appear at ICGT 201

12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012) : WST 2012, February 19–23, 2012, Obergurgl, Austria / ed. by Georg Moser

This volume contains the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012), to be held February 19–23, 2012 in Obergurgl, Austria. The goal of the Workshop on Termination is to be a venue for presentation and discussion of all topics in and around termination. In this way, the workshop tries to bridge the gaps between different communities interested and active in research in and around termination. The 12th International Workshop on Termination in Obergurgl continues the successful workshops held in St. Andrews (1993), La Bresse (1995), Ede (1997), Dagstuhl (1999), Utrecht (2001), Valencia (2003), Aachen (2004), Seattle (2006), Paris (2007), Leipzig (2009), and Edinburgh (2010). The 12th International Workshop on Termination did welcome contributions on all aspects of termination and complexity analysis. Contributions from the imperative, constraint, functional, and logic programming communities, and papers investigating applications of complexity or termination (for example in program transformation or theorem proving) were particularly welcome. We did receive 18 submissions which all were accepted. Each paper was assigned two reviewers. In addition to these 18 contributed talks, WST 2012, hosts three invited talks by Alexander Krauss, Martin Hofmann, and Fausto Spoto

Verification of Imperative Programs by Constraint Logic Program Transformation

We present a method for verifying partial correctness properties of imperative programs that manipulate integers and arrays by using techniques based on the transformation of constraint logic programs (CLP). We use CLP as a metalanguage for representing imperative programs, their executions, and their properties. First, we encode the correctness of an imperative program, say prog, as the negation of a predicate 'incorrect' defined by a CLP program T. By construction, 'incorrect' holds in the least model of T if and only if the execution of prog from an initial configuration eventually halts in an error configuration. Then, we apply to program T a sequence of transformations that preserve its least model semantics. These transformations are based on well-known transformation rules, such as unfolding and folding, guided by suitable transformation strategies, such as specialization and generalization. The objective of the transformations is to derive a new CLP program TransfT where the predicate 'incorrect' is defined either by (i) the fact 'incorrect.' (and in this case prog is not correct), or by (ii) the empty set of clauses (and in this case prog is correct). In the case where we derive a CLP program such that neither (i) nor (ii) holds, we iterate the transformation. Since the problem is undecidable, this process may not terminate. We show through examples that our method can be applied in a rather systematic way, and is amenable to automation by transferring to the field of program verification many techniques developed in the field of program transformation.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

Correctness and completeness of logic programs

We discuss proving correctness and completeness of definite clause logic programs. We propose a method for proving completeness, while for proving correctness we employ a method which should be well known but is often neglected. Also, we show how to prove completeness and correctness in the presence of SLD-tree pruning, and point out that approximate specifications simplify specifications and proofs. We compare the proof methods to declarative diagnosis (algorithmic debugging), showing that approximate specifications eliminate a major drawback of the latter. We argue that our proof methods reflect natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming.Comment: 29 pages, 2 figures; with editorial modifications, small corrections and extensions. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1411.3015. Overlaps explained in "Related Work" (p. 21