Invariant Generation through Strategy Iteration in Succinctly Represented Control Flow Graphs

We consider the problem of computing numerical invariants of programs, for instance bounds on the values of numerical program variables. More specifically, we study the problem of performing static analysis by abstract interpretation using template linear constraint domains. Such invariants can be obtained by Kleene iterations that are, in order to guarantee termination, accelerated by widening operators. In many cases, however, applying this form of extrapolation leads to invariants that are weaker than the strongest inductive invariant that can be expressed within the abstract domain in use. Another well-known source of imprecision of traditional abstract interpretation techniques stems from their use of join operators at merge nodes in the control flow graph. The mentioned weaknesses may prevent these methods from proving safety properties. The technique we develop in this article addresses both of these issues: contrary to Kleene iterations accelerated by widening operators, it is guaranteed to yield the strongest inductive invariant that can be expressed within the template linear constraint domain in use. It also eschews join operators by distinguishing all paths of loop-free code segments. Formally speaking, our technique computes the least fixpoint within a given template linear constraint domain of a transition relation that is succinctly expressed as an existentially quantified linear real arithmetic formula. In contrast to previously published techniques that rely on quantifier elimination, our algorithm is proved to have optimal complexity: we prove that the decision problem associated with our fixpoint problem is in the second level of the polynomial-time hierarchy.Comment: 35 pages, conference version published at ESOP 2011, this version is a CoRR version of our submission to Logical Methods in Computer Scienc

Structure and Problem Hardness: Goal Asymmetry and DPLL Proofs in<br> SAT-Based Planning

In Verification and in (optimal) AI Planning, a successful method is to formulate the application as boolean satisfiability (SAT), and solve it with state-of-the-art DPLL-based procedures. There is a lack of understanding of why this works so well. Focussing on the Planning context, we identify a form of problem structure concerned with the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of the cost of achieving the individual planning goals. We quantify this sort of structure with a simple numeric parameter called AsymRatio, ranging between 0 and 1. We run experiments in 10 benchmark domains from the International Planning Competitions since 2000; we show that AsymRatio is a good indicator of SAT solver performance in 8 of these domains. We then examine carefully crafted synthetic planning domains that allow control of the amount of structure, and that are clean enough for a rigorous analysis of the combinatorial search space. The domains are parameterized by size, and by the amount of structure. The CNFs we examine are unsatisfiable, encoding one planning step less than the length of the optimal plan. We prove upper and lower bounds on the size of the best possible DPLL refutations, under different settings of the amount of structure, as a function of size. We also identify the best possible sets of branching variables (backdoors). With minimum AsymRatio, we prove exponential lower bounds, and identify minimal backdoors of size linear in the number of variables. With maximum AsymRatio, we identify logarithmic DPLL refutations (and backdoors), showing a doubly exponential gap between the two structural extreme cases. The reasons for this behavior -- the proof arguments -- illuminate the prototypical patterns of structure causing the empirical behavior observed in the competition benchmarks