Resource control of object-oriented programs

A sup-interpretation is a tool which provides an upper bound on the size of a value computed by some symbol of a program. Sup-interpretations have shown their interest to deal with the complexity of first order functional programs. For instance, they allow to characterize all the functions bitwise computable in Alogtime. This paper is an attempt to adapt the framework of sup-interpretations to a fragment of oriented-object programs, including distinct encodings of numbers through the use of constructor symbols, loop and while constructs and non recursive methods with side effects. We give a criterion, called brotherly criterion, which ensures that each brotherly program computes objects whose size is polynomially bounded by the inputs sizes

Complexity Information Flow in a Multi-threaded Imperative Language

We propose a type system to analyze the time consumed by multi-threaded imperative programs with a shared global memory, which delineates a class of safe multi-threaded programs. We demonstrate that a safe multi-threaded program runs in polynomial time if (i) it is strongly terminating wrt a non-deterministic scheduling policy or (ii) it terminates wrt a deterministic and quiet scheduling policy. As a consequence, we also characterize the set of polynomial time functions. The type system presented is based on the fundamental notion of data tiering, which is central in implicit computational complexity. It regulates the information flow in a computation. This aspect is interesting in that the type system bears a resemblance to typed based information flow analysis and notions of non-interference. As far as we know, this is the first characterization by a type system of polynomial time multi-threaded programs

Analyzing the Implicit Computational Complexity of object-oriented programs

A sup-interpretation is a tool which provides upper bounds on the size of the values computed by the function symbols of a program. Sup-interpretations have shown their interest to deal with the complexity of first order functional programs. This paper is an attempt to adapt the framework of sup-interpretations to a fragment of object-oriented programs, including loop and while constructs and methods with side effects. We give a criterion, called brotherly criterion, which uses the notion of sup-interpretation to ensure that each brotherly program computes objects whose size is polynomially bounded by the inputs sizes. Moreover we give some heuristics in order to compute the sup-interpretation of a given method

Synthesis of sup-interpretations: a survey

In this paper, we survey the complexity of distinct methods that allow the programmer to synthesize a sup-interpretation, a function providing an upper- bound on the size of the output values computed by a program. It consists in a static space analysis tool without consideration of the time consumption. Although clearly related, sup-interpretation is independent from termination since it only provides an upper bound on the terminating computations. First, we study some undecidable properties of sup-interpretations from a theoretical point of view. Next, we fix term rewriting systems as our computational model and we show that a sup-interpretation can be obtained through the use of a well-known termination technique, the polynomial interpretations. The drawback is that such a method only applies to total functions (strongly normalizing programs). To overcome this problem we also study sup-interpretations through the notion of quasi-interpretation. Quasi-interpretations also suffer from a drawback that lies in the subterm property. This property drastically restricts the shape of the considered functions. Again we overcome this problem by introducing a new notion of interpretations mainly based on the dependency pairs method. We study the decidability and complexity of the sup-interpretation synthesis problem for all these three tools over sets of polynomials. Finally, we take benefit of some previous works on termination and runtime complexity to infer sup-interpretations.Comment: (2012

A characterization of polynomial complexity classes using dependency pairs

The dependency pair method has already shown its power in proving termination of term rewriting systems. We adapt this framework using polynomial assignments in order to characterize with two distinct criteria the set of the functions computable in polynomial time and the set of the functions computable in polynomial space. To our knowledge, this is a first attempt to capture complexity classes using of the dependency pair method. The characterizations presented are inspired by previous works on implicit computational complexity, and, particularly, by the notions of quasi-interpretation and sup-interpretation. Both criteria are decidable so that we can synthesize resource upper-bounds

Polynomial Path Orders

This paper is concerned with the complexity analysis of constructor term rewrite systems and its ramification in implicit computational complexity. We introduce a path order with multiset status, the polynomial path order POP*, that is applicable in two related, but distinct contexts. On the one hand POP* induces polynomial innermost runtime complexity and hence may serve as a syntactic, and fully automatable, method to analyse the innermost runtime complexity of term rewrite systems. On the other hand POP* provides an order-theoretic characterisation of the polytime computable functions: the polytime computable functions are exactly the functions computable by an orthogonal constructor TRS compatible with POP*.Comment: LMCS version. This article supersedes arXiv:1209.379

The Derivational Complexity Induced by the Dependency Pair Method

We study the derivational complexity induced by the dependency pair method, enhanced with standard refinements. We obtain upper bounds on the derivational complexity induced by the dependency pair method in terms of the derivational complexity of the base techniques employed. In particular we show that the derivational complexity induced by the dependency pair method based on some direct technique, possibly refined by argument filtering, the usable rules criterion, or dependency graphs, is primitive recursive in the derivational complexity induced by the direct method. This implies that the derivational complexity induced by a standard application of the dependency pair method based on traditional termination orders like KBO, LPO, and MPO is exactly the same as if those orders were applied as the only termination technique

Automatic Synthesis of Logical Models for Order-Sorted First-Order Theories

[EN] In program analysis, the synthesis of models of logical theories representing the program semantics is often useful to prove program properties. We use order-sorted first- order logic as an appropriate framework to describe the semantics and properties of programs as given theories. Then we investigate the automatic synthesis of models for such theories. We use convex polytopic domains as a flexible approach to associate different domains to different sorts. We introduce a framework for the piecewise definition of functions and predicates. We develop its use with linear expressions (in a wide sense, including linear transformations represented as matrices) and inequalities to specify functions and predicates. In this way, algorithms and tools from linear algebra and arithmetic constraint solving (e.g., SMT) can be used as a backend for an efficient implementation.Partially supported by the EU (FEDER), projects TIN2015-69175-C4-1-R, and GV PROMETEOII/2015/ 013. R. Gutiérrez also supported by Juan de la Cierva Fellowship JCI-2012-13528.Lucas Alba, S.; Gutiérrez Gil, R. (2018). Automatic Synthesis of Logical Models for Order-Sorted First-Order Theories. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 60(4):465-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-017-9419-3S465501604Alarcón, B., Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Proving termination properties with MU-TERM. In: Proceedings of AMAST’10. LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 201–208 (2011)Alarcón, B., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Using matrix interpretations over the reals in proofs of termination. In: Proceedings of PROLE’09, pp. 255–264 (2009)Albert, E., Genaim, S., Gutiérrez, R.: A Transformational Approach to Resource Analysis with Typed-Norms. Revised Selected Papers from LOPSTR’13. LNCS, vol. 8901, pp 38–53 (2013)de Angelis, E., Fioravante, F., Pettorossi, A., Proietti, M.: Proving correctness of imperative programs by linearizing constrained Horn clauses. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 15(4–5), 635–650 (2015)de Angelis, E., Fioravante, F., Pettorossi, A., Proietti, M.: Semantics-based generation of verification conditions by program specialization. In: Proceedings of PPDP’15, pp. 91–102. ACM Press, New York (2015)Aoto, T.: Solution to the problem of zantema on a persistent property of term rewriting systems. J. Funct. Log. Program. 2001(11), 1–20 (2001)Barwise, J.: An Introduction to First-Order Logic. In: Barwise, J. (ed.) Handbook of Mathematical Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1977)Barwise, J.: Axioms for Abstract Model Theory. Ann. Math. Log. 7, 221–265 (1974)Bochnak, J., Coste, M., Roy, M.-F.: Real Algebraic Geometry. Springer, Berlin (1998)Birkhoff, G., Lipson, J.D.: Heterogeneous algebras. J. Comb. Theory 8, 115–133 (1970)Bofill, M., Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez-Carbonell, E., Rubio, A.: The Barcelogic SMT Solver. In: Proceedings of CAV’08. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 294–298 (2008)Bjørner, N., Gurfinkel, A., McMillan, K., Rybalchenko, A.: Horn-clause solvers for program verification. In: Fields of Logic and Computation II—Essays Dedicated to Yuri Gurevich on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday. LNCS, vol. 9300, pp. 24–51 (2015)Bjørner, N., McMillan, K., Rybalchenko, A.: On solving universally quantified horn-clauses. In: Proceedings of SAS’13. LNCS vol. 7935, pp. 105–125 (2013)Bjørner, N., McMillan, K., Rybalchenko, A.: Program verification as satisfiability modulo theories. In: Proceedings of SMT’12, EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 20, pp. 3–11 (2013)Bliss, G.A.: Algebraic Functions. Dover (2004)Bonfante, G., Marion, J.-Y., Moyen, J.-Y.: On Lexicographic Termination Ordering With Space Bound Certifications. Revised Papers from PSI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2244, pp. 482–493 (2001)Boolos, G.S., Burgess, J.P., Jeffrey, R.C.: Computability and Logic, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Borralleras, C., Lucas, S., Oliveras, A., Rodríguez, E., Rubio, A.: SAT modulo linear arithmetic for solving polynomial constraints. J. Autom. Reason. 48, 107–131 (2012)Bürckert, H.-J., Hollunder, B., Laux, A.: On Skolemization in constrained logics. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 18, 95–131 (1996)Burstall, R.M., Goguen, J.A.: Putting Theories together to make specifications. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’77, pp. 1045–1058. William Kaufmann (1977)Caplain, M.: Finding invariant assertions for proving programs. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reliable Software, pp. 165–171. ACM Press, New York (1975)Chang, C.L., Lee, R.C.: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, Orlando (1973)Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude—A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS 4350, (2007)Cohn, A.G.: Improving the expressiveness of many sorted logic. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 84–87. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1983)Contejean, E., Marché, C., Tomás, A.-P., Urbain, X.: Mechanically proving termination using polynomial interpretations. J. Autom. Reason. 34(4), 325–363 (2006)Cooper, D.C.: Programs for mechanical program verification. Mach. Intell. 6, 43–59 (1971). Edinburgh University PressCooper, D.C.: Theorem proving in arithmetic without multiplication. Mach. Intell. 7, 91–99 (1972)Courtieu, P., Gbedo, G., Pons, O.: Improved matrix interpretations. In: Proceedings of SOFSEM’10. LNCS, vol. 5901, pp. 283–295 (2010)Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Mauborgne, L.: Logical abstract domains and interpretations. In: The Future of Sofware Engineering, pp. 48–71. Springer, New York (2011)Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic Discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Conference Record of POPL’78, pp. 84–96. ACM Press, New York (1978)Davey, B.A., Priestley, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Elspas, B., Levitt, K.N., Waldinger, R.J., Waksman, A.: An assessment of techniques for proving program correctness. Comput. Surv. 4(2), 97–147 (1972)van Emdem, M.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. J. ACM 23(4), 733–742 (1976)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. In: Proceedings of IJCAR’06. LNCS, vol. 4130, pp. 574–588 (2006)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. J. Autom. Reason. 40(2–3), 195–220 (2008)Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. Math. Asp. Comput. Sci. 19, 19–32 (1967)Fuhs, C., Giesl, J., Middeldorp, A., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R., Zankl, H.: Maximal termination. In: Proceedings of RTA’08. LNCS, vol. 5117, pp. 110–125 (2008)Fuhs, C., Giesl, J., Parting, M., Schneider-Kamp, P., Swiderski, S.: Proving termination by dependency pairs and inductive theorem proving. J. Autom. Reason. 47, 133–160 (2011)Fuhs, C., Kop, C.: Polynomial interpretations for higher-order rewriting. In: Proceedings of RTA’12. LIPIcs, vol. 15, pp. 176–192 (2012)Futatsugi, K., Diaconescu, R.: CafeOBJ Report. World Scientific, AMAST Series, (1998)Gaboardi, M., Péchoux, R.: On bounding space usage of streams using interpretation analysis. Sci. Comput. Program. 111, 395–425 (2015)Giesl, J., Mesnard, F., Rubio, A., Thiemann, R., Waldmann, J.: Termination competition (termCOMP 2015). In: Proceedings of CADE’15. LNCS, vol. 9195, pp. 105–108 (2015)Giesl, J., Ströder, T., Schneider-Kamp, P., Emmes, F., Fuhs, C.: Symbolic evaluation graphs and term rewriting—a general methodology for analyzing logic programs. In: Proceedings of the PPDP’12, pp. 1–12. ACM Press (2012)Giesl, J., Raffelsieper, M., Schneider-Kamp, P., Swiderski, S., Thiemann, R.: Automated termination proofs for haskell by term rewriting. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33(2), 7 (2011)Gnaedig, I.: Termination of Order-sorted Rewriting. In: Proceedings of ALP’92. LNCS, vol. 632, pp. 37–52 (1992)Goguen, J.A.: Order-Sorted Algebra. Semantics and Theory of Computation Report 14, UCLA (1978)Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Some fundamental algebraic tools for the semantics of computation. Part 1: comma categories, colimits, signatures and theories. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 31, 175–209 (1984)Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Some fundamental algebraic tools for the semantics of computation. Part 2 signed and abstract theories. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 31, 263–295 (1984)Goguen, J., Meseguer, J.: Models and equality for logical programming. In: Proceedings of TAPSOFT’87. LNCS, vol. 250, pp. 1–22 (1987)Goguen, J.A., Thatcher, J.W., Wagner, E.G.: An initial algebra approach to the specification, correctness and implementation of abstract data types. In: Current Trends in Programming Methodology, pp. 80–149. Prentice Hall (1978)Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Remarks on remarks on many-sorted equational logic. Sigplan Notices 22(4), 41–48 (1987)Goguen, J., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted algebra I: equational deduction for multiple inheritance, overloading, exceptions and partial operations. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 105, 217–273 (1992)Goguen, J.A., Winkler, T., Meseguer, J., Futatsugi, K., Jouannaud, J.-P.: Introducing OBJ. In: Goguen, J., Malcolm, G. (eds.) Software Engineering with OBJ: Algebraic Specification in Action. Kluwer, Boston (2000)Grebenshikov, S., Lopes, N.P., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Synthesizing software verifiers from proof rules. In: Proceedings of PLDI’12, pp. 405–416. ACM Press (2012)Gulwani, S., Tiwari, A.: Combining Abstract Interpreters. In: Proceedings of PLDI’06, pp. 376–386. ACM Press (2006)Gurfinkel, A., Kahsai, T., Komuravelli, A., Navas, J.A.: The seahorn verification framework. In: Proceedings of CAV’15, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 343–361 (2015)Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Reinoso, P.: A tool for the automatic generation of logical models of order-sorted first-order theories. In: Proceedings of PROLE’16, pp. 215–230 (2016). http://zenon.dsic.upv.es/ages/Hantler, S.L., King, J.C.: An introduction to proving the correctness of programs. ACM Comput. Surv. 8(3), 331–353 (1976)Hayes, P.: A logic of actions. Mach. Intell. 6, 495–520 (1971). Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghHeidergott, B., Olsder, G.J., van der Woude, J.: Max plus at work. A course on max-plus algebra and its applications. In: Modeling and Analysis of Synchronized Systems, Princeton University Press (2006)Hirokawa, N., Moser, G.: Automated complexity analysis based on the dependency pair method. In: Proceedings of IJCAR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5195, pp. 364–379 (2008)Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–583 (1969)Hodges, W.: Elementary Predicate Logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 1, pp. 1–131. Reidel Publishing Company (1983)Hodges, W.: A Shorter Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Hofbauer, D.: Termination proofs by context-dependent interpretation. In: Proceedings of RTA’01. LNCS, vol. 2051, pp. 108–121 (2001)Hofbauer, D.: Termination proofs for ground rewrite systems. interpretations and derivational complexity. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 12, 21–38 (2001)Hofbauer, D., Lautemann, C.: Termination proofs and the length of derivations. In: Proceedings of RTA’89. LNCS, vol. 355, pp. 167–177 (1989)Hull, T.E., Enright, W.H., Sedgwick, A.E.: The correctness of numerical algorithms. In: Proceedings of PAAP’72, pp. 66–73 (1972)Igarashi, S., London, R.L., Luckham, D.: Automatic program verification I: a logical basis and its implementation. Acta Inform. 4, 145–182 (1975)Iwami, M.: Persistence of termination of term rewriting systems with ordered sorts. In: Proceedings of 5th JSSST Workshop on Programming and Programming Languages, Shizuoka, Japan, pp. 47–56. (2003)Iwami, M.: Persistence of termination for non-overlapping term rewriting systems. In: Proceedings of Algebraic Systems, Formal Languages and Conventional and Unconventional Computation Theory, Kokyuroku RIMS, University of Kyoto, vol. 1366, pp. 91–99 (2004)Katz, S., Manna, Z.: Logical analysis of programs. Commun. ACM 19(4), 188–206 (1976)Langford, C.H.: Review: Über deduktive Theorien mit mehreren Sorten von Grunddingen. J. Symb. Log. 4(2), 98 (1939)Lankford, D.S.: Some approaches to equality for computational logic: a survey and assessment. Memo ATP-36, Automatic Theorem Proving Project, University of Texas, Austin, TXLondon, R.L.: The current state of proving programs correct. In: Proceedings of ACM’72, vol. 1, pp. 39–46. ACM (1972)Lucas, S.: Polynomials over the reals in proofs of termination: from theory to practice. RAIRO Theor. Inform. Appl. 39(3), 547–586 (2005)Lucas, S.: Synthesis of models for order-sorted first-order theories using linear algebra and constraint solving. Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200, 32–47 (2015)Lucas, S.: Use of logical models for proving operational termination in general logics. In: Selected Papers from WRLA’16. LNCS, vol. 9942, pp. 1–21 (2016)Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Inform. Proces. Lett. 95, 446–453 (2005)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Models for logics and conditional constraints in automated proofs of termination. In: Proceedings of AISC’14. LNAI, vol. 8884, pp. 7–18 (2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted dependency pairs. In: Proceedings of PPDP’08 , pp. 108–119. ACM Press (2008)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Proving operational termination of declarative programs in general logics. In: Proceedings of PPDP’14, pp. 111–122. ACM Digital Library (2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Dependency pairs for proving termination properties of conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 86, 236–268 (2017)Manna, Z.: The correctness of programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 3, 119–127 (1969)Manna, Z.: Properties of programs and the first-order predicate calculus. J. ACM 16(2), 244–255 (1969)Manna, Z.: Termination of programs represented as interpreted graphs. In: Proceedings of AFIPS’70, pp. 83–89 (1970)Manna, Z., Ness, S.: On the termination of Markov algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Third Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp. 789–792 (1970)Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Formalization of properties of functional programs. J. ACM 17(3), 555–569 (1970)Marion, Y.-I., Péchoux, R.: Sup-interpretations, a semantic method for static analysis of program resources. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 10(4), 27 (2009)Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Palomino, M.: Theoroidal maps as algebraic simulations. Revised Selected Papers from WADT’04. LNCS, vol. 3423, pp. 126–143 (2005)McCarthy, J.: Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine. Part I. Commun. ACM 3(4), 184–195 (1960)Meseguer, J.: General logics. In: Ebbinghaus, H.D., et al. (eds.) Logic Colloquium’87, pp. 275–329. North-Holland (1989)Meseguer, J., Skeirik, S.: Equational formulas and pattern operations in initial order-sorted algebras. Revised Selected Papers from LOPSTR’15. LNCS, vol. 9527, pp. 36–53 (2015)Middeldorp, A.: Matrix interpretations for polynomial derivational complexity of rewrite systems. In: Proceedings of LPAR’12. LNCS, vol. 7180, p. 12 (2012)Monin, J.-F.: Understanding Formal Methods. Springer, London (2003)Montenegro, M., Peña, R., Segura, C.: Space consumption analysis by abstract interpretation: inference of recursive functions. Sci. Comput. Program. 111, 426–457 (2015)de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Satisfiability modulo theories: introduction and applications. Commun. ACM 54(9), 69–77 (2011)Naur, P.: Proof of algorithms by general snapshots. Bit 6, 310–316 (1966)Neurauter, F., Middeldorp, A.: Revisiting matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. In: Proceedings of RTA’11. LIPICS, vol. 10, pp. 251–266 (2011)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, New York (2002)Ölveczky, P.C., Lysne, O.: Order-sorted termination: the unsorted way. In: Proceedings of ALP’96. LNCS, vol. 1139, pp. 92–106 (1996)Otto, C., Brockschmidt, M., von Essen, C., Giesl, J.: Automated termination analysis of java bytecode by term rewriting. In: Proceedings of RTA’10. LIPICS, vol. 6, pp. 259–276 (2010)Péchoux, R.: Synthesis of sup-interpretations: a survey. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 467, 30–52 (2013)Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Transition invariants. In: IEEE Computer Society Proceedings of LICS’04, pp. 32–41 (2004)Prestel, A., Delzell, C.N.: Positive Polynomials. From Hilbert’s 17th Problem to Real Algebra. Springer, Berlin (2001)Robinson, D.J.S.: A Course in Linear Algebra with Applications, 2nd edn. World Scientific Publishing, Co, Singapore (2006)Rümmer, P., Hojjat, H., Kuncak, V.: Disjunctive interpolants for horn-clause verification. In: Proceedings of CAV’13, vol. 8044, pp. 347–363 (2013)Schrijver, A.: Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. Wiley, Amsterdam (1986)Schmidt, A.: Über deduktive Theorien mit mehreren Sorten von Grunddingen. Matematische Annalen 115(4), 485–506 (1938)Schmidt-Schauss, M.: Computational Aspects Of An Order-Sorted Logic With Term Declarations. PhD Thesis, Fachbereich Informatik der Universität Kaiserslautern (1988)Shapiro, S.: Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic. Clarendon Press, New York (1991)Shostak, R.E.: A practical decision procedure for arithmetic with function symbols. J. ACM 26(2), 351–360 (1979)Smullyan, R.M.: Theory of Formal Systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1961)Tarski, A.: A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley (1951)Toyama, Y.: Counterexamples to termination for the direct sum of term rewriting systems. Inform. Process. Lett. 25, 141–143 (1987)Turing, A.M.: Checking a large routine. In: Report of a Conference on High Speed Automatic Calculating Machines, University Mathematics Laboratory, Cambridge, pp. 67–69 (1949)Urban, C.: The abstract domain of segmented ranking functions. In: Proceeding of SAS’13. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 43–62 (2013)Urban, C., Gurfinkel, A., Kahsai, T.: Synthesizing ranking functions from bits and pieces. In: Proceedings of TACAS’16. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 54–70 (2016)Waldmann, J.: Matrix interpretations on polyhedral domains. In: Proceedings of RTA’15. LIPICS, vol. 26, pp. 318–333 (2015)Waldmann, J., Bau, A., Noeth, E.: Matchbox termination prover. http://github.com/jwaldmann/matchbox/ (2014)Walther, C.: A mechanical solution of schubert’s steamroller by many-sorted resolution. Aritif. Intell. 26, 217–224 (1985)Wang, H.: Logic of many-sorted theories. J. Symb. Logic 17(2), 105–116 (1952)Zantema, H.: Termination of term rewriting: interpretation and type elimination. J. Symb. Comput. 17, 23–50 (1994

Sup-interpretations, a semantic method for static analysis of program resources

The sup-interpretation method is proposed as a new tool to control memory resources of first order functional programs with pattern matching by static analysis. It has beeen introduced in order to increase the intensionality, that is the number of captured algorithms, of a previous method, the quasi-interpretations. Basically, a sup-interpretation provides an upper bound on the size of function outputs. A criterion, which can be applied to terminating as well as nonterminating programs, is developed in order to bound the stack frame size polynomially. Since this work is related to quasi-interpretation, dependency pairs and size-change principle methods, we compare these notions obtaining several results. The first result is that, given any program, we have heuristics for finding a sup-interpretation when we consider polynomials of bounded degree. Another result consists in the characterizations of the sets of functions computable in polynomial time and in polynomial space. A last result consists in applications of sup-interpretations to the dependency pair and the size-change principle methods