Advertisement

Effectively Propositional Interpolants

  • Samuel Drews
  • Aws AlbarghouthiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9780)

Abstract

We present a novel interpolation algorithm for effectively propositional logic (epr), a decidable fragment of first-order logic that enjoys a small-model property. epr is a powerful fragment of quantified formulas that has been used to model and verify a range of programs, including heap-manipulating programs and distributed protocols. Our interpolation technique samples finite models from two sides of the interpolation problem and generalizes them to learn a quantified interpolant. Our results demonstrate our technique’s ability to compute universally-quantified, existentially-quantified, as well as alternation-free interpolants and inductive invariants, thus improving the state of the art.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Shachar Itzhaky for giving us access to his PDR implementation. We would like to thank Thomas Reps and the programming languages group at UW–Madison for their insightful comments. We would like thank Paris Koutris for pointing out the connection between our proof of relative completeness and Pebble-like games. Finally, we would like to thank our shepherd, Mooly Sagiv, who gave us in-depth comments that helped fix earlier inconsistencies in our arguments.

References

  1. 1.
    Albargouthi, A., Berdine, J., Cook, B., Kincaid, Z.: Spatial interpolants. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) ESOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9032, pp. 634–660. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albarghouthi, A., McMillan, K.L.: Beautiful interpolants. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 313–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alberti, F., Bruttomesso, R., Ghilardi, S., Ranise, S., Sharygina, N.: SAFARI: SMT-based abstraction for arrays with interpolants. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 679–685. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Singhania, N.: Precise piecewise affine models from input-output data. In: Mitra, T., Reineke, J. (eds.) EMSOFT, pp. 3:1–3:10. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball, T., Bjørner, N., Gember, A., Itzhaky, S., Karbyshev, A., Sagiv, M., Schapira, M., Valadarsky, A.: Vericon: towards verifying controller programs in software-defined networks. In: O’Boyle, M.F.P., Pingali, K. (eds.) PLDI, p. 31. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjørner, N.: Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjørner, N., Gurfinkel, A., Korovin, K., Lahav, O.: Instantiations, zippers and EPR interpolation. In: McMillan, K.L., Middeldorp, A., Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR (short papers). EPiC Series, vol. 26, pp. 35–41. EasyChair (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang, C.C., Keisler, J.: Model Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 73. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1973). 3rd edn., 1990zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ermis, E., Schäf, M., Wies, T.: Error invariants. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garg, P., Löding, C., Madhusudan, P., Neider, D.: Learning universally quantified invariants of linear data structures. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 813–829. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Jones, N.D., Leroy, X. (eds.) POPL, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itzhaky, S., Banerjee, A., Immerman, N., Lahav, O., Nanevski, A., Sagiv, M.: Modular reasoning about heap paths via effectively propositional formulas. In: Jagannathan, S., Sewell, P. (eds.) POPL, pp. 385–396. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Itzhaky, S., Banerjee, A., Immerman, N., Nanevski, A., Sagiv, M.: Effectively-propositional reasoning about reachability in linked data structures. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 756–772. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Itzhaky, S., Bjørner, N., Reps, T., Sagiv, M., Thakur, A.: Property-directed shape analysis. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Array abstractions from proofs. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 193–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karbyshev, A., Bjørner, N., Itzhaky, S., Rinetzky, N., Shoham, S.: Property-directed inference of universal invariants or proving their absence. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 583–602. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Padon, O., Immerman, N., Shoham, S., Karbyshev, A., Sagiv, M.: Decidability of inferring inductive invariants. In: Bodik, R., Majumdar, R. (eds.) POPL, pp. 217–231. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Padon, O., McMillan, K.L., Panda, A., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Ivy: interactive verification of parameterized systems via effectively propositional reasoning. In: PLDI. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Navarro-Pérez, J.A., Voronkov, A.: Encodings of bounded LTL model checking in effectively propositional logic. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 346–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Navarro-Pérez, J.A., Voronkov, A.: Encodings of problems in effectively propositional logic. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 3–3. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Navarro-Pérez, J.A., Voronkov, A.: Planning with effectively propositional logic. In: Voronkov, A., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) Programming Logics. LNCS, vol. 7797, pp. 302–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Piskac, R., de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Deciding effectively propositional logic using DPLL and substitution sets. JAR 44(4), 401–424 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reps, T., Sagiv, M., Yorsh, G.: Symbolic Implementation of the Best Transformer. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma, R., Nori, A.V., Aiken, A.: Interpolants as classifiers. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 71–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sivaramakrishnan, K.C., Kaki, G., Jagannathan, S.: Declarative programming over eventually consistent data stores. In: Grove, D., Blackburn, S. (eds.) PLDI, pp. 413–424. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thakur, A.: Symbolic Abstraction: Algorithms and Applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Totla, N., Wies, T.: Complete instantiation-based interpolation. In: Giacobazzi, R., Cousot, R. (eds.) POPL, pp. 537–548. ACM (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations