19,801 research outputs found

    Stochastic Invariants for Probabilistic Termination

    Full text link
    Termination is one of the basic liveness properties, and we study the termination problem for probabilistic programs with real-valued variables. Previous works focused on the qualitative problem that asks whether an input program terminates with probability~1 (almost-sure termination). A powerful approach for this qualitative problem is the notion of ranking supermartingales with respect to a given set of invariants. The quantitative problem (probabilistic termination) asks for bounds on the termination probability. A fundamental and conceptual drawback of the existing approaches to address probabilistic termination is that even though the supermartingales consider the probabilistic behavior of the programs, the invariants are obtained completely ignoring the probabilistic aspect. In this work we address the probabilistic termination problem for linear-arithmetic probabilistic programs with nondeterminism. We define the notion of {\em stochastic invariants}, which are constraints along with a probability bound that the constraints hold. We introduce a concept of {\em repulsing supermartingales}. First, we show that repulsing supermartingales can be used to obtain bounds on the probability of the stochastic invariants. Second, we show the effectiveness of repulsing supermartingales in the following three ways: (1)~With a combination of ranking and repulsing supermartingales we can compute lower bounds on the probability of termination; (2)~repulsing supermartingales provide witnesses for refutation of almost-sure termination; and (3)~with a combination of ranking and repulsing supermartingales we can establish persistence properties of probabilistic programs. We also present results on related computational problems and an experimental evaluation of our approach on academic examples.Comment: Full version of a paper published at POPL 2017. 20 page

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Using Program Synthesis for Program Analysis

    Get PDF
    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

    Classes of Terminating Logic Programs

    Full text link
    Termination of logic programs depends critically on the selection rule, i.e. the rule that determines which atom is selected in each resolution step. In this article, we classify programs (and queries) according to the selection rules for which they terminate. This is a survey and unified view on different approaches in the literature. For each class, we present a sufficient, for most classes even necessary, criterion for determining that a program is in that class. We study six classes: a program strongly terminates if it terminates for all selection rules; a program input terminates if it terminates for selection rules which only select atoms that are sufficiently instantiated in their input positions, so that these arguments do not get instantiated any further by the unification; a program local delay terminates if it terminates for local selection rules which only select atoms that are bounded w.r.t. an appropriate level mapping; a program left-terminates if it terminates for the usual left-to-right selection rule; a program exists-terminates if there exists a selection rule for which it terminates; finally, a program has bounded nondeterminism if it only has finitely many refutations. We propose a semantics-preserving transformation from programs with bounded nondeterminism into strongly terminating programs. Moreover, by unifying different formalisms and making appropriate assumptions, we are able to establish a formal hierarchy between the different classes.Comment: 50 pages. The following mistake was corrected: In figure 5, the first clause for insert was insert([],X,[X]

    Acceptability with general orderings

    Full text link
    We present a new approach to termination analysis of logic programs. The essence of the approach is that we make use of general orderings (instead of level mappings), like it is done in transformational approaches to logic program termination analysis, but we apply these orderings directly to the logic program and not to the term-rewrite system obtained through some transformation. We define some variants of acceptability, based on general orderings, and show how they are equivalent to LD-termination. We develop a demand driven, constraint-based approach to verify these acceptability-variants. The advantage of the approach over standard acceptability is that in some cases, where complex level mappings are needed, fairly simple orderings may be easily generated. The advantage over transformational approaches is that it avoids the transformation step all together. {\bf Keywords:} termination analysis, acceptability, orderings.Comment: To appear in "Computational Logic: From Logic Programming into the Future

    A New Proof Rule for Almost-Sure Termination

    Get PDF
    An important question for a probabilistic program is whether the probability mass of all its diverging runs is zero, that is that it terminates "almost surely". Proving that can be hard, and this paper presents a new method for doing so; it is expressed in a program logic, and so applies directly to source code. The programs may contain both probabilistic- and demonic choice, and the probabilistic choices may depend on the current state. As do other researchers, we use variant functions (a.k.a. "super-martingales") that are real-valued and probabilistically might decrease on each loop iteration; but our key innovation is that the amount as well as the probability of the decrease are parametric. We prove the soundness of the new rule, indicate where its applicability goes beyond existing rules, and explain its connection to classical results on denumerable (non-demonic) Markov chains.Comment: V1 to appear in PoPL18. This version collects some existing text into new example subsection 5.5 and adds a new example 5.6 and makes further remarks about uncountable branching. The new example 5.6 relates to work on lexicographic termination methods, also to appear in PoPL18 [Agrawal et al, 2018

    Algorithmic Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Termination Problems for Affine Probabilistic Programs

    Full text link
    In this paper, we consider termination of probabilistic programs with real-valued variables. The questions concerned are: 1. qualitative ones that ask (i) whether the program terminates with probability 1 (almost-sure termination) and (ii) whether the expected termination time is finite (finite termination); 2. quantitative ones that ask (i) to approximate the expected termination time (expectation problem) and (ii) to compute a bound B such that the probability to terminate after B steps decreases exponentially (concentration problem). To solve these questions, we utilize the notion of ranking supermartingales which is a powerful approach for proving termination of probabilistic programs. In detail, we focus on algorithmic synthesis of linear ranking-supermartingales over affine probabilistic programs (APP's) with both angelic and demonic non-determinism. An important subclass of APP's is LRAPP which is defined as the class of all APP's over which a linear ranking-supermartingale exists. Our main contributions are as follows. Firstly, we show that the membership problem of LRAPP (i) can be decided in polynomial time for APP's with at most demonic non-determinism, and (ii) is NP-hard and in PSPACE for APP's with angelic non-determinism; moreover, the NP-hardness result holds already for APP's without probability and demonic non-determinism. Secondly, we show that the concentration problem over LRAPP can be solved in the same complexity as for the membership problem of LRAPP. Finally, we show that the expectation problem over LRAPP can be solved in 2EXPTIME and is PSPACE-hard even for APP's without probability and non-determinism (i.e., deterministic programs). Our experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to answer the qualitative and quantitative questions over APP's with at most demonic non-determinism.Comment: 24 pages, full version to the conference paper on POPL 201

    On Multiphase-Linear Ranking Functions

    Full text link
    Multiphase ranking functions (MΦRFs\mathit{M{\Phi}RFs}) were proposed as a means to prove the termination of a loop in which the computation progresses through a number of "phases", and the progress of each phase is described by a different linear ranking function. Our work provides new insights regarding such functions for loops described by a conjunction of linear constraints (single-path loops). We provide a complete polynomial-time solution to the problem of existence and of synthesis of MΦRF\mathit{M{\Phi}RF} of bounded depth (number of phases), when variables range over rational or real numbers; a complete solution for the (harder) case that variables are integer, with a matching lower-bound proof, showing that the problem is coNP-complete; and a new theorem which bounds the number of iterations for loops with MΦRFs\mathit{M{\Phi}RFs}. Surprisingly, the bound is linear, even when the variables involved change in non-linear way. We also consider a type of lexicographic ranking functions, LLRFs\mathit{LLRFs}, more expressive than types of lexicographic functions for which complete solutions have been given so far. We prove that for the above type of loops, lexicographic functions can be reduced to MΦRFs\mathit{M{\Phi}RFs}, and thus the questions of complexity of detection and synthesis, and of resulting iteration bounds, are also answered for this class.Comment: typos correcte
    corecore