Posts tagged ‘Invariant’

## Loop invariants: the musical

Actually it is not a musical but an extensive survey. I have long been fascinated by the notion of loop invariant, which describes the essence of a loop. Considering a loop without its invariant is like conducting an orchestra without a score.

In this submitted survey paper written with Sergey Velder and Carlo Furia [1], we study loop invariants in depth and describe many algorithms from diverse areas of computer science through their invariants. For simplicity and clarity, the specification technique uses the Domain Theory technique described in an earlier article on this blog [2] (see also [3]). The invariants were verified mechanically using Boogie, a sign of how much more realistic verification technology has become in recent years.

The survey was a major effort (we worked on it for a year and a half); it is not perfect but we hope it will prove useful in the understanding, teaching and verification of important algorithms.

Here is the article’s abstract:

At the heart of every loop, and hence of all significant algorithms, lies a loop invariant: a property ensured by the initialization and maintained by every iteration so that, when combined with the exit condition, it yields the loop’s final effect. Identifying the invariant of every loop is not only a required step for software verification, but also a key requirement for understanding the loop and the program to which it belongs. The systematic study of loop invariants of important algorithms can, as a consequence, yield insights into the nature of software.

We performed this study over a wide range of fundamental algorithms from diverse areas of computer science. We analyze the patterns according to which invariants are derived from postconditions, propose a classification of invariants according to these patterns, and present its application to the algorithms reviewed. The discussion also shows the need for high-level specification and invariants based on “domain theory”. The
included invariants and the corresponding algorithms have been mechanically verified using an automatic program prover. Along with the classification and applications, the conclusions include suggestions for automatic invariant inference and general techniques for model-based specification.

#### References

[1] Carlo Furia, Bertrand Meyer and Sergey Velder: Loop invariants: analysis, classification, and examples, submitted for publication, December 2012, draft available here.

[2] Domain Theory: the Forgotten Step in Program Verification, article from this blog, 11 April 2012, available here.

[3] Domain Theory: Precedents, article from this blog, 11 April 2012, available here

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: 9.8/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

## Webinar today: the Varieties of Loop Invariants

I did not have time to complete my Monday post this week; it will be for next Monday (title: Never design a language). In the meantime, here is the announcement for today’s Saint Petersburg Software Engineering seminar , which can be followed live at http://sel.ifmo.ru/seminar/live (19:30 Saint Petersburg time, meaning 16:30 Zurich/Paris, 7:30 PDT on 12 January 2012), duration about one hour.

I will be talking today; the topic is “The varieties of loop invariants”, reporting on joint work with Carlo Furia and Sergey Velder. The abstract appears below.

A recording of previous talks, starting from those of last week, will soon be available on the seminar page.

#### Abstract

The key practical issue in verifying software is to come up with the right loop invariants. We are performing an extensive analysis of loop invariants in important algorithms across all major areas of computer science, and have developed a taxonomy. I will present some of the results of this ongoing work, performed with Sergey Velder (ITMO) and Carlo Furia (ETH).

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

## Contracts written by people, contracts written by machines

What kind of contract do you write? Could these contracts, or some of them, be produced automatically?

The idea of inferring contracts from programs is intriguing; it also raises serious epistemological issues. In fact, one may question whether it makes any sense at all. I will leave the question of principle to another post, in connection with some of our as yet unpublished work. This is, in any case, an active research field, in particular because of the big stir that Mike Ernst’s Daikon created when it appeared a few years ago.

Daikon [1] infers loop invariants dynamically: it observes executions; by looking up a repertoire of invariant patterns, it finds out what properties the loops maintain. It may sound strange to you (it did to Mike’s PhD thesis supervisor [2] when he first heard about the idea), but it yields remarkable results.

In a recent paper presented at ISSTA [3], we took advantage of Daikon to compare the kinds of contract people write with those that a machine could infer. The work started out as Nadia Polikarpova’s master’s thesis at ITMO  in Saint Petersburg [4], in the group of Prof. Anatoly Shalyto and under the supervision of Ilinca Ciupa from ETH. (Ilinca recently completed her PhD thesis on automatic testing [5], and is co-author of the article.) The CITADEL tool — the name is an acronym, but you will have to look up the references to see what it means — applies Daikon to Eiffel program.

CITADEL is the first application of Daikon to a language where programmers can write contracts. Previous interfaces were for contract-less languages such as Java where the tool must synthesize everything. In Eiffel, programmers do write contracts (as confirmed by Chalin’s experimental study [6]). Hence the natural questions: does the tool infer the same contracts as a programmer will naturally write? If not, which kinds of contract is each best at?

To answer these questions, the study looked at three sources of contracts:

• Contracts already present in the code (in the case of widely used libraries such as EiffelBase, equipped with contracts throughout).
• Those devised by students, in a small-scale experiment.
• The contracts inferred by Daikon.

What do you think? Before looking up our study, you might want to make your own guess at the answers. You will not find a spoiler here; for the study’s results, you should read our paper [3]. All right, just a hint: machines and people are (in case you had not noticed this before) good at different things.

#### References

[1] Michael Ernst and others, Daikon bibliography on Ernst’s research page at the University of Washington.

[2] David Notkin, see his web page.

[3] A Comparative Study of Programmer-Written and Automatically Inferred Contracts, by Nadia Polikarpova, Ilinca Ciupa and me, in ISSTA 2009: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Chicago, July 2009, online copy available.

[4] ITMO (Saint-Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics), see here.

[5] Ilinca Ciupa, Strategies for random contract-based testing; PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, December 2008. For a link to the text and to her other publications see Ilinca’s ETH page.

[6] Patrice Chalin,  Are practitioners writing contracts? In Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems, eds. Jones et al.,  Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4157, Springer Verlag, 2006, pages 100-113.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)