Stepping Stones to Inductive Synthesis of Low-Level Looping Programs

Inductive program synthesis, from input/output examples, can provide an opportunity to automatically create programs from scratch without presupposing the algorithmic form of the solution. For induction of general programs with loops (as opposed to loop-free programs, or synthesis for domain-specific languages), the state of the art is at the level of introductory programming assignments. Most problems that require algorithmic subtlety, such as fast sorting, have remained out of reach without the benefit of significant problem-specific background knowledge. A key challenge is to identify cues that are available to guide search towards correct looping programs. We present MAKESPEARE, a simple delayed-acceptance hillclimbing method that synthesizes low-level looping programs from input/output examples. During search, delayed acceptance bypasses small gains to identify significantly-improved stepping stone programs that tend to generalize and enable further progress. The method performs well on a set of established benchmarks, and succeeds on the previously unsolved "Collatz Numbers" program synthesis problem. Additional benchmarks include the problem of rapidly sorting integer arrays, in which we observe the emergence of comb sort (a Shell sort variant that is empirically fast). MAKESPEARE has also synthesized a record-setting program on one of the puzzles from the TIS-100 assembly language programming game.Comment: AAAI 201

Constraints on predicate invention

This chapter describes an inductive learning method that derives logic programs and invents predicates when needed. The basic idea is to form the least common anti-instance (LCA) of selected seed examples. If the LCA is too general it forms the starting poínt of a gneral-to-specific search which is guided by various constraints on argument dependencies and critical terms. A distinguishing feature of the method is its ability to introduce new predicates. Predicate invention involves three steps. First, the need for a new predicate is discovered and the arguments of the new predicate are determíned using the same constraints that guide the search. In the second step, instances of the new predicate are abductively inferred. These instances form the input for the last step where the definition of the new predicate is induced by recursively applying the method again. We also outline how such a system could be more tightly integrated with an abductive learning system

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

A comparative survey of integrated learning systems

This paper presents the duction framework for unifying the three basic forms of inference - deduction, abduction, and induction - by specifying the possible relationships and influences among them in the context of integrated learning. Special assumptive forms of inference are defined that extend the use of these inference methods, and the properties of these forms are explored. A comparison to a related inference-based learning frame work is made. Finally several existing integrated learning programs are examined in the perspective of the duction framework

Sciduction: Combining Induction, Deduction, and Structure for Verification and Synthesis

Even with impressive advances in automated formal methods, certain problems in system verification and synthesis remain challenging. Examples include the verification of quantitative properties of software involving constraints on timing and energy consumption, and the automatic synthesis of systems from specifications. The major challenges include environment modeling, incompleteness in specifications, and the complexity of underlying decision problems. This position paper proposes sciduction, an approach to tackle these challenges by integrating inductive inference, deductive reasoning, and structure hypotheses. Deductive reasoning, which leads from general rules or concepts to conclusions about specific problem instances, includes techniques such as logical inference and constraint solving. Inductive inference, which generalizes from specific instances to yield a concept, includes algorithmic learning from examples. Structure hypotheses are used to define the class of artifacts, such as invariants or program fragments, generated during verification or synthesis. Sciduction constrains inductive and deductive reasoning using structure hypotheses, and actively combines inductive and deductive reasoning: for instance, deductive techniques generate examples for learning, and inductive reasoning is used to guide the deductive engines. We illustrate this approach with three applications: (i) timing analysis of software; (ii) synthesis of loop-free programs, and (iii) controller synthesis for hybrid systems. Some future applications are also discussed

k-Step Relative Inductive Generalization

We introduce a new form of SAT-based symbolic model checking. One common idea in SAT-based symbolic model checking is to generate new clauses from states that can lead to property violations. Our previous work suggests applying induction to generalize from such states. While effective on some benchmarks, the main problem with inductive generalization is that not all such states can be inductively generalized at a given time in the analysis, resulting in long searches for generalizable states on some benchmarks. This paper introduces the idea of inductively generalizing states relative to $k$-step over-approximations: a given state is inductively generalized relative to the latest $k$-step over-approximation relative to which the negation of the state is itself inductive. This idea motivates an algorithm that inductively generalizes a given state at the highest level $k$ so far examined, possibly by generating more than one mutually $k$-step relative inductive clause. We present experimental evidence that the algorithm is effective in practice.Comment: 14 page