Quantitative Robustness Analysis of Quantum Programs (Extended Version)

Quantum computation is a topic of significant recent interest, with practical advances coming from both research and industry. A major challenge in quantum programming is dealing with errors (quantum noise) during execution. Because quantum resources (e.g., qubits) are scarce, classical error correction techniques applied at the level of the architecture are currently cost-prohibitive. But while this reality means that quantum programs are almost certain to have errors, there as yet exists no principled means to reason about erroneous behavior. This paper attempts to fill this gap by developing a semantics for erroneous quantum while-programs, as well as a logic for reasoning about them. This logic permits proving a property we have identified, called $\epsilon$-robustness, which characterizes possible "distance" between an ideal program and an erroneous one. We have proved the logic sound, and showed its utility on several case studies, notably: (1) analyzing the robustness of noisy versions of the quantum Bernoulli factory (QBF) and quantum walk (QW); (2) demonstrating the (in)effectiveness of different error correction schemes on single-qubit errors; and (3) analyzing the robustness of a fault-tolerant version of QBF.Comment: 34 pages, LaTeX; v2: fixed typo

Symbolic and analytic techniques for resource analysis of Java bytecode

Recent work in resource analysis has translated the idea of amortised resource analysis to imperative languages using a program logic that allows mixing of assertions about heap shapes, in the tradition of separation logic, and assertions about consumable resources. Separately, polyhedral methods have been used to calculate bounds on numbers of iterations in loop-based programs. We are attempting to combine these ideas to deal with Java programs involving both data structures and loops, focusing on the bytecode level rather than on source code

Credimus

We believe that economic design and computational complexity---while already important to each other---should become even more important to each other with each passing year. But for that to happen, experts in on the one hand such areas as social choice, economics, and political science and on the other hand computational complexity will have to better understand each other's worldviews. This article, written by two complexity theorists who also work in computational social choice theory, focuses on one direction of that process by presenting a brief overview of how most computational complexity theorists view the world. Although our immediate motivation is to make the lens through which complexity theorists see the world be better understood by those in the social sciences, we also feel that even within computer science it is very important for nontheoreticians to understand how theoreticians think, just as it is equally important within computer science for theoreticians to understand how nontheoreticians think

Computer-aided verification in mechanism design

In mechanism design, the gold standard solution concepts are dominant strategy incentive compatibility and Bayesian incentive compatibility. These solution concepts relieve the (possibly unsophisticated) bidders from the need to engage in complicated strategizing. While incentive properties are simple to state, their proofs are specific to the mechanism and can be quite complex. This raises two concerns. From a practical perspective, checking a complex proof can be a tedious process, often requiring experts knowledgeable in mechanism design. Furthermore, from a modeling perspective, if unsophisticated agents are unconvinced of incentive properties, they may strategize in unpredictable ways. To address both concerns, we explore techniques from computer-aided verification to construct formal proofs of incentive properties. Because formal proofs can be automatically checked, agents do not need to manually check the properties, or even understand the proof. To demonstrate, we present the verification of a sophisticated mechanism: the generic reduction from Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism design to algorithm design given by Hartline, Kleinberg, and Malekian. This mechanism presents new challenges for formal verification, including essential use of randomness from both the execution of the mechanism and from the prior type distributions. As an immediate consequence, our work also formalizes Bayesian incentive compatibility for the entire family of mechanisms derived via this reduction. Finally, as an intermediate step in our formalization, we provide the first formal verification of incentive compatibility for the celebrated Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism

Polynomial Invariants for Affine Programs

We exhibit an algorithm to compute the strongest polynomial (or algebraic) invariants that hold at each location of a given affine program (i.e., a program having only non-deterministic (as opposed to conditional) branching and all of whose assignments are given by affine expressions). Our main tool is an algebraic result of independent interest: given a finite set of rational square matrices of the same dimension, we show how to compute the Zariski closure of the semigroup that they generate

Generating Non-Linear Interpolants by Semidefinite Programming

Interpolation-based techniques have been widely and successfully applied in the verification of hardware and software, e.g., in bounded-model check- ing, CEGAR, SMT, etc., whose hardest part is how to synthesize interpolants. Various work for discovering interpolants for propositional logic, quantifier-free fragments of first-order theories and their combinations have been proposed. However, little work focuses on discovering polynomial interpolants in the literature. In this paper, we provide an approach for constructing non-linear interpolants based on semidefinite programming, and show how to apply such results to the verification of programs by examples.Comment: 22 pages, 4 figure

Perspectives for proof unwinding by programming languages techniques

In this chapter, we propose some future directions of work, potentially beneficial to Mathematics and its foundations, based on the recent import of methodology from the theory of programming languages into proof theory. This scientific essay, written for the audience of proof theorists as well as the working mathematician, is not a survey of the field, but rather a personal view of the author who hopes that it may inspire future and fellow researchers