Using Abstraction in Model Checking Z Specifications

The Z notation is a language used for writing formal specifications of a system. However, tool support for this language is lacking. One such tool that is not generally available is a model checker. Model checking is a method used to verify that a system has certain properties, this is important since it can provide full verification of a finite state system without the user having sophisticated knowledge. Originally applied in hardware systems, it is now commonly available for application in software systems. One of the drawbacks of model checking is that it applies to finite state systems, since it works by performing a complete state space exploration. However, the size of the systems that model checkers can now cope with has increased rapidly. In this paper, the use of abstraction as a means to make model checking feasible for arbitrary Z specifications is investigated. Several experiments have shown that the abstract models have fewer states than the concrete ones or have the same number of states as the concrete one

Inductive programming meets the real world

© Gulwani, S. et al. | ACM 2015. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive Version of Record was published in Communications of the ACM, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2736282[EN] Since most end users lack programming skills they often spend considerable time and effort performing tedious and repetitive tasks such as capitalizing a column of names manually. Inductive Programming has a long research tradition and recent developments demonstrate it can liberate users from many tasks of this kind.Gulwani, S.; Hernández-Orallo, J.; Kitzelmann, E.; Muggleton, SH.; Schmid, U.; Zorn, B. (2015). Inductive programming meets the real world. Communications of the ACM. 58(11):90-99. doi:10.1145/2736282S90995811Bengio, Y., Courville, A. and Vincent, P. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives.Pattern Analy. Machine Intell. 35, 8 (2013), 1798--1828.Bielawski, B. Using the convertfrom-string cmdlet to parse structured text.PowerShell Magazine, (Sept. 9, 2004); http://www.powershellmagazine.com/2014/09/09/using-the-convertfrom-string-cmdlet-to-parse-structured-text/Carlson, A., Betteridge, J., Kisiel, B., Settles, B., Hruschka-Jr, E.R. and T.M. Mitchell, T.M. Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. InAAAI, 2010.Chandola, V., Banerjee, A. and V. Kumar, V. Anomaly detection: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys 41, 3 (2009), 15.Cypher, A. (Ed).Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration.MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.Ferri-Ramírez, C., Hernández-Orallo, J. and Ramírez-Quintana, M.J. Incremental learning of functional logic programs. InProceedings of FLOPS, 2001, 233--247.Flener, P. and Schmid, U. An introduction to inductive programming.AI Review 29, 1 (2009), 45--62.Gulwani, S. Dimensions in program synthesis. InProceedings of PPDP, 2010.Gulwani, S. Automating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples. InProceedings of POPL, 2011; http://research.microsoft.com/users/sumitg/flashfill.html.Gulwani, S. Example-based learning in computer-aided STEM education.Commun. ACM 57, 8 (Aug 2014), 70--80.Gulwani, S., Harris, W. and Singh, R. Spreadsheet data manipulation using examples.Commun. ACM 55, 8 (Aug. 2012), 97--105.Henderson, R.J. and Muggleton, S.H. Automatic invention of functional abstractions.Latest Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, 2012.Hernández-Orallo, J. Deep knowledge: Inductive programming as an answer, Dagstuhl TR 13502, 2013.Hofmann, M. and Kitzelmann, E. I/O guided detection of list catamorphisms---towards problem specific use of program templates in IP. InACM SIGPLAN PEPM, 2010.Jha, J., Gulwani, S., Seshia, S. and Tiwari, A. Oracle-guided component-based program synthesis. InProceedings of the ICSE, 2010.Katayama, S. Efficient exhaustive generation of functional programs using Monte-Carlo search with iterative deepening. InProceedings of PRICAI, 2008.Kitzelmann, E. Analytical inductive functional programming.LOPSTR 2008, LNCS 5438.Springer, 2009, 87--102.Kitzelmann, E. Inductive programming: A survey of program synthesis techniques. InAAIP, Springer, 2010, 50--73.Kitzelmann, E. and Schmid, U. Inductive synthesis of functional programs: An explanation based generalization approach.J. Machine Learning Research 7, (Feb. 2006), 429--454.Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J.R. and Simon, H.A. Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi.Cognitive Psychology 17, 2 (1985), 248--294.Lau, T.A. Why programming-by-demonstration systems fail: Lessons learned for usable AI.AI Mag. 30, 4, (2009), 65--67.Lau, T.A., Wolfman, S.A., Domingos, P. and Weld, D.S. Programming by demonstration using version space algebra.Machine Learning 53, 1-2 (2003), 111--156.Le, V. and Gulwani, S. FlashExtract: A framework for data extraction by examples. InProceedings of PLDI, 2014.Lieberman, H. (Ed).Your Wish is My Command: Programming by Example.Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.Lin, D., Dechter, E., Ellis, K., Tenenbaum, J.B. and Muggleton, S.H. Bias reformulation for one-shot function induction. InProceedings of ECAI, 2014.Marcus, G.F. The Algebraic Mind.Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science.Bradford, Cambridge, MA, 2001.Martìnez-Plumed, C. Ferri, Hernández-Orallo, J. and M.J. Ramírez-Quintana. On the definition of a general learning system with user-defined operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.4235, 2013.Menon, A., Tamuz, O., Gulwani, S., Lampson, B. and Kalai, A. A machine learning framework for programming by example. InProceedings of the ICML, 2013.Miller, R.C. and Myers, B.A. Multiple selections in smart text editing. InProceedings of IUI, 2002, 103--110.Muggleton, S.H. Inductive Logic Programming.New Generation Computing 8, 4 (1991), 295--318.Muggleton, S.H. and Lin, D. Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: Predicate invention revisited.IJCAI 2013, 1551--1557.Muggleton, S.H., Lin, D., Pahlavi, N. and Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A. Meta-interpretive learning: application to grammatical inference.Machine Learning 94(2014), 25--49.Muggleton, S.H., De Raedt, L., Poole, D., Bratko, I., Flach, P. and Inoue, P. ILP turns 20: Biography and future challenges.Machine Learning 86, 1 (2011), 3--23.Olsson, R. Inductive functional programming using incremental program transformation.Artificial Intelligence 74, 1 (1995), 55--83.Perelman, D., Gulwani, S., Grossman, D. and Provost, P. Test-driven synthesis.PLDI, 2014.Raza, M., Gulwani, S. and Milic-Frayling, N. Programming by example using least general generalizations.AAAI, 2014.Schmid, U. and Kitzelmann, E. Inductive rule learning on the knowledge level.Cognitive Systems Research 12, 3 (2011), 237--248.Schmid, U. and Wysotzki, F. Induction of recursive program schemes.ECML 1398 LNAI(1998), 214--225.Shapiro, E.Y. An algorithm that infers theories from facts.IJCAI(1981), 446--451.Solar-Lezama, A.Program Synthesis by Sketching.Ph.D thesis, UC Berkeley, 2008.Summers, P.D. A methodology for LISP program construction from examples.JACM 24, 1 (1977), 162--175.Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L. and Kemp, C. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, 7 (2006), 309--318.Young, S. Cognitive user interfaces.IEEE Signal Processing 27, 3 (2010), 128--140

Automated goal operationalisation based on interpolation and SAT solving

Goal oriented methods have been successfully employed for eliciting and elaborating software requirements. When goals are assigned to an agent, they have to be operationalised: the agent’s operations have to be refined, by equipping them with appropriate enabling and triggering conditions, so that the goals are fulfilled. Goal operationalisation generally demands a significant effort of the engineer. Although there exist approaches that tackle this problem, they are either in-formal or at most semi automated, requiring the engineer to assist in the process. In this paper, we present an approach for goal operationalisation that automatically computes required preconditions and required triggering conditions for operations, so that the resulting operations establish the goals. The process is iterative, is able to deal with safety goals and particular kinds of liveness goals, and is based on the use of interpolation and SAT solving