Combining Forward and Backward Abstract Interpretation of Horn Clauses

Alternation of forward and backward analyses is a standard technique in abstract interpretation of programs, which is in particular useful when we wish to prove unreachability of some undesired program states. The current state-of-the-art technique for combining forward (bottom-up, in logic programming terms) and backward (top-down) abstract interpretation of Horn clauses is query-answer transformation. It transforms a system of Horn clauses, such that standard forward analysis can propagate constraints both forward, and backward from a goal. Query-answer transformation is effective, but has issues that we wish to address. For that, we introduce a new backward collecting semantics, which is suitable for alternating forward and backward abstract interpretation of Horn clauses. We show how the alternation can be used to prove unreachability of the goal and how every subsequent run of an analysis yields a refined model of the system. Experimentally, we observe that combining forward and backward analyses is important for analysing systems that encode questions about reachability in C programs. In particular, the combination that follows our new semantics improves the precision of our own abstract interpreter, including when compared to a forward analysis of a query-answer-transformed system.Comment: Francesco Ranzato. 24th International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS), Aug 2017, New York City, United States. Springer, Static Analysi

Synthesizing Modular Invariants for Synchronous Code

In this paper, we explore different techniques to synthesize modular invariants for synchronous code encoded as Horn clauses. Modular invariants are a set of formulas that characterizes the validity of predicates. They are very useful for different aspects of analysis, synthesis, testing and program transformation. We describe two techniques to generate modular invariants for code written in the synchronous dataflow language Lustre. The first technique directly encodes the synchronous code in a modular fashion. While in the second technique, we synthesize modular invariants starting from a monolithic invariant. Both techniques, take advantage of analysis techniques based on property-directed reachability. We also describe a technique to minimize the synthesized invariants.Comment: In Proceedings HCVS 2014, arXiv:1412.082

A Continuous-Discontinuous Second-Order Transition in the Satisfiability of Random Horn-SAT Formulas

We compute the probability of satisfiability of a class of random Horn-SAT formulae, motivated by a connection with the nonemptiness problem of finite tree automata. In particular, when the maximum clause length is 3, this model displays a curve in its parameter space along which the probability of satisfiability is discontinuous, ending in a second-order phase transition where it becomes continuous. This is the first case in which a phase transition of this type has been rigorously established for a random constraint satisfaction problem

Limits of Preprocessing

We present a first theoretical analysis of the power of polynomial-time preprocessing for important combinatorial problems from various areas in AI. We consider problems from Constraint Satisfaction, Global Constraints, Satisfiability, Nonmonotonic and Bayesian Reasoning. We show that, subject to a complexity theoretic assumption, none of the considered problems can be reduced by polynomial-time preprocessing to a problem kernel whose size is polynomial in a structural problem parameter of the input, such as induced width or backdoor size. Our results provide a firm theoretical boundary for the performance of polynomial-time preprocessing algorithms for the considered problems.Comment: This is a slightly longer version of a paper that appeared in the proceedings of AAAI 201

Learning programs by learning from failures

We describe an inductive logic programming (ILP) approach called learning from failures. In this approach, an ILP system (the learner) decomposes the learning problem into three separate stages: generate, test, and constrain. In the generate stage, the learner generates a hypothesis (a logic program) that satisfies a set of hypothesis constraints (constraints on the syntactic form of hypotheses). In the test stage, the learner tests the hypothesis against training examples. A hypothesis fails when it does not entail all the positive examples or entails a negative example. If a hypothesis fails, then, in the constrain stage, the learner learns constraints from the failed hypothesis to prune the hypothesis space, i.e. to constrain subsequent hypothesis generation. For instance, if a hypothesis is too general (entails a negative example), the constraints prune generalisations of the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is too specific (does not entail all the positive examples), the constraints prune specialisations of the hypothesis. This loop repeats until either (i) the learner finds a hypothesis that entails all the positive and none of the negative examples, or (ii) there are no more hypotheses to test. We introduce Popper, an ILP system that implements this approach by combining answer set programming and Prolog. Popper supports infinite problem domains, reasoning about lists and numbers, learning textually minimal programs, and learning recursive programs. Our experimental results on three domains (toy game problems, robot strategies, and list transformations) show that (i) constraints drastically improve learning performance, and (ii) Popper can outperform existing ILP systems, both in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times.Comment: Accepted for the machine learning journa

Guarantees and Limits of Preprocessing in Constraint Satisfaction and Reasoning

We present a first theoretical analysis of the power of polynomial-time preprocessing for important combinatorial problems from various areas in AI. We consider problems from Constraint Satisfaction, Global Constraints, Satisfiability, Nonmonotonic and Bayesian Reasoning under structural restrictions. All these problems involve two tasks: (i) identifying the structure in the input as required by the restriction, and (ii) using the identified structure to solve the reasoning task efficiently. We show that for most of the considered problems, task (i) admits a polynomial-time preprocessing to a problem kernel whose size is polynomial in a structural problem parameter of the input, in contrast to task (ii) which does not admit such a reduction to a problem kernel of polynomial size, subject to a complexity theoretic assumption. As a notable exception we show that the consistency problem for the AtMost-NValue constraint admits a polynomial kernel consisting of a quadratic number of variables and domain values. Our results provide a firm worst-case guarantees and theoretical boundaries for the performance of polynomial-time preprocessing algorithms for the considered problems.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1104.2541, arXiv:1104.556

Abstract Canonical Inference

An abstract framework of canonical inference is used to explore how different proof orderings induce different variants of saturation and completeness. Notions like completion, paramodulation, saturation, redundancy elimination, and rewrite-system reduction are connected to proof orderings. Fairness of deductive mechanisms is defined in terms of proof orderings, distinguishing between (ordinary) "fairness," which yields completeness, and "uniform fairness," which yields saturation.Comment: 28 pages, no figures, to appear in ACM Trans. on Computational Logi