Polynomial Invariants by Linear Algebra

  • Steven de Oliveira
  • Saddek Bensalem
  • Virgile Prevosto
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9938)

Abstract

We present in this paper a new technique for generating polynomial invariants, divided in two independent parts: a procedure that reduces polynomial assignments composed loops analysis to linear loops under certain hypotheses and a procedure for generating inductive invariants for linear loops. Both of these techniques have a polynomial complexity for a bounded number of variables and we guarantee the completeness of the technique for a bounded degree which we successfully implemented for C programs verification.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Madhusudan, P.: A temporal logic of nested calls and returns. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 467–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basu, S.K., Misra, J.: Proving loop programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 76–86 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 300–309 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botella, B., Delahaye, M., Ha, S.H.T., Kosmatov, N., Mouy, P., Roger, M., Williams, N.: Automating structural testing of C programs: experience with PathCrawler. In: 4th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test, AST, pp. 70–78 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cachera, D., Jensen, T.P., Jobin, A., Kirchner, F.: Inference of polynomial invariants for imperative programs: a farewell to Gröbner bases. Sci. Comput. Program. 93, 89–109 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbonell, E.: Polynomial invariant generation. http://www.cs.upc.edu/erodri/webpage/polynomial_invariants/list.html
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. CAV 2000, 154–169 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper, K.D., Simpson, L.T., Vick, C.A.: Operator strength reduction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23(5), 603–625 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Oliveira, S., Bensalem, S., Prevosto, V.: Polynomial invariants by linear algebra. Technical report 16–0065/SDO, CEA (2016). http://steven-de-oliveira.perso.sfr.fr/content/publis/pilat_tech_report.pdf
  10. 10.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: The verifying compiler: a grand challenge for computing research. J. ACM 50(1), 63–69 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hojjat, H., Iosif, R., Konečný, F., Kuncak, V., Rümmer, P.: Accelerating interpolants. In: Chakraborty, S., Mukund, M. (eds.) ATVA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7561, pp. 187–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, D.B.: Finding all the elementary circuits of a directed graph. SIAM J. Comput. 4(1), 77–84 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kauers, M., Zimmermann, B.: Computing the algebraic relations of C-finite sequences and multisequences. J. Symb. Comput. 43(11), 787–803 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-C: a software analysis perspective. Formal Aspects Comput. 27(3), 573–609 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovács, L.: Aligator: a mathematica package for invariant generation (system description). In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 275–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovács, L.: A complete invariant generation approach for P-solvable loops. In: Pnueli, A., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5947, pp. 242–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayr, E.: Membership in polynomial ideals over Q is exponential space complete. In: Monien, B., Cori, R. (eds.) STACS 1989. LNCS, vol. 349, pp. 400–406. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Müller-Olm, M., Seidl, H.: Polynomial constants are decidable. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Puebla, G. (eds.) SAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2477, pp. 4–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller-Olm, M., Seidl, H.: Precise interprocedural analysis through linear algebra. POPL 2004, 330–341 (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pan, V.Y., Chen, Z.Q.: The complexity of the matrix eigenproblem. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1–4, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 507–516 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodríguez-Carbonell, E., Kapur, D.: Generating all polynomial invariants in simple loops. J. Symbolic Comput. 42(4), 443–476 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tarjan, R.E.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 1(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven de Oliveira
    • 1
  • Saddek Bensalem
    • 2
  • Virgile Prevosto
    • 1
  1. 1.CEA, LIST, Software Reliability and Security LabGif Sur Yvette CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université Grenoble AlpesSaint-martin-d’hàresFrance

Personalised recommendations