Human-Centric Program Synthesis

Program synthesis techniques offer significant new capabilities in searching for programs that satisfy high-level specifications. While synthesis has been thoroughly explored for input/output pair specifications (programming-by-example), this paper asks: what does program synthesis look like beyond examples? What actual issues in day-to-day development would stand to benefit the most from synthesis? How can a human-centric perspective inform the exploration of alternative specification languages for synthesis? I sketch a human-centric vision for program synthesis where programmers explore and learn languages and APIs aided by a synthesis tool

Using Program Synthesis for Program Analysis

In this paper, we identify a fragment of second-order logic with restricted quantification that is expressive enough to capture numerous static analysis problems (e.g. safety proving, bug finding, termination and non-termination proving, superoptimisation). We call this fragment the {\it synthesis fragment}. Satisfiability of a formula in the synthesis fragment is decidable over finite domains; specifically the decision problem is NEXPTIME-complete. If a formula in this fragment is satisfiable, a solution consists of a satisfying assignment from the second order variables to \emph{functions over finite domains}. To concretely find these solutions, we synthesise \emph{programs} that compute the functions. Our program synthesis algorithm is complete for finite state programs, i.e. every \emph{function} over finite domains is computed by some \emph{program} that we can synthesise. We can therefore use our synthesiser as a decision procedure for the synthesis fragment of second-order logic, which in turn allows us to use it as a powerful backend for many program analysis tasks. To show the tractability of our approach, we evaluate the program synthesiser on several static analysis problems.Comment: 19 pages, to appear in LPAR 2015. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1409.492

Are There Good Mistakes? A Theoretical Analysis of CEGIS

Counterexample-guided inductive synthesis CEGIS is used to synthesize programs from a candidate space of programs. The technique is guaranteed to terminate and synthesize the correct program if the space of candidate programs is finite. But the technique may or may not terminate with the correct program if the candidate space of programs is infinite. In this paper, we perform a theoretical analysis of counterexample-guided inductive synthesis technique. We investigate whether the set of candidate spaces for which the correct program can be synthesized using CEGIS depends on the counterexamples used in inductive synthesis, that is, whether there are good mistakes which would increase the synthesis power. We investigate whether the use of minimal counterexamples instead of arbitrary counterexamples expands the set of candidate spaces of programs for which inductive synthesis can successfully synthesize a correct program. We consider two kinds of counterexamples: minimal counterexamples and history bounded counterexamples. The history bounded counterexample used in any iteration of CEGIS is bounded by the examples used in previous iterations of inductive synthesis. We examine the relative change in power of inductive synthesis in both cases. We show that the synthesis technique using minimal counterexamples MinCEGIS has the same synthesis power as CEGIS but the synthesis technique using history bounded counterexamples HCEGIS has different power than that of CEGIS, but none dominates the other.Comment: In Proceedings SYNT 2014, arXiv:1407.493

Digital filter synthesis computer program

Digital filter synthesis computer program expresses any continuous function of a complex variable in approximate form as a computational algorithm or difference equation. Once the difference equation has been developed, digital filtering can be performed by the program on any input data list