Unifying theories distil common features of programming languages and design methods by means of algebraic operators and their laws. Several practical concerns---e.g., improvement of a program, conformance of code with design, correctness with respect to specified requirements---are subsumed by the beautiful notion that programs and designs are special forms of specification and their relationships are instances of logical implication between specifications. Mathematical development of this idea has been very successful but limited to an impoverished notion of specification: trace properties. Some mathematically precise properties of programs---dubbed hyperproperties---refer to traces collectively. For example, confidentiality involves knowledge of possible traces. This article reports on both obvious and surprising results about lifting algebras of programming to hyperproperties, especially in connection with loops, and suggests directions for further research. The main results are: the first compositional semantics of imperative programs with loops, at the hyper level, and a proof that this semantics is the same as the direct image of a standard semantics, for subset closed hyperproperties.
Pasqua and Mastroeni have aims similar to Assaf , and investigate several variations on set-of-set semantics of loops @cite_29 . Our example in is adapted from their work, which uses examples to suggest that Assaf's definition (called mixed'' in @cite_29 ) is preferable. They also point out that, for subset closed hyperproperties, these variations are precise in the sense of our Theorem , strengthening the inequation in Assaf . Displayed formula @math following Theorem 1 of @cite_24 .
@cite_24 @cite_29
2004414305 1515930456 1567025285 1523041988
We propose a new translation from normal logic programs with constraints under the answer set semantics to propositional logic. Given a normal logic program, we show that by adding, for each loop in the program, a corresponding loop formula to the program's completion, we obtain a one-to-one correspondence between the answer sets of the program and the models of the resulting propositional theory. In the worst case, there may be an exponential number of loops in a logic program. To address this problem, we propose an approach that adds loop formulas a few at a time, selectively. Based on these results, we implement a system called ASSAT(X), depending on the SAT solver X used, for computing one answer set of a normal logic program with constraints. We test the system on a variety of benchmarks including the graph coloring, the blocks world planning, and Hamiltonian Circuit domains. Our experimental results show that in these domains, for the task of generating one answer set of a normal logic program, our system has a clear edge over the state-of-art answer set programming systems Smodels and DLV. The problem of deciding the satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula with respect to a background theory, also known as Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), is gaining increasing relevance in verification: representation capabilities beyond propositional logic allow for a natural modeling of real-world problems (e.g., pipeline and RTL circuits verification, proof obligations in software systems). In this paper, we focus on the case where the background theory is the combination T1∪T2 of two simpler theories. Many SMT procedures combine a boolean model enumeration with a decision procedure for T1∪T2, where conjunctions of literals can be decided by an integration schema such as Nelson-Oppen, via a structured exchange of interface formulae (e.g., equalities in the case of convex theories, disjunctions of equalities otherwise). We propose a new approach for SMT(T1∪T2), called Delayed Theory Combination, which does not require a decision procedure for T1∪T2, but only individual decision procedures for T1 and T2, which are directly integrated into the boolean model enumerator. This approach is much simpler and natural, allows each of the solvers to be implemented and optimized without taking into account the others, and it nicely encompasses the case of non-convex theories. We show the effectiveness of the approach by a thorough experimental comparison. This paper introduces an original 2-valued semantics for Normal Logic Programs (NLP), which conservatively extends the Stable Model semantics (SM) to all normal programs. The distinction consists in the revision of one feature of SM, namely its treatment of odd loops, and of infinitely long support chains, over default negation. This single revised aspect, addressed by means of a Reductio ad Absurdum approach, affords a number of fruitful consequences, namely regarding existence, relevance and top-down querying, cumulativity, and implementation. The paper motivates and defines the Revised Stable Models semantics (rSM), justifying and exemplifying it. Properties of rSM are given and contrasted with those of SM. Furthermore, these results apply to SM whenever odd loops and infinitely long chains over negation are absent, thereby establishing significant, not previously known, properties of SM. Conclusions, further work, terminate the paper. A traditional counterexample to a linear-time safety property shows the values of all signals at all times prior to the error. However, some signals may not be critical to causing the failure. A succinct explanation may help human understanding as well as speed up algorithms that have to analyze many such traces. In Bounded Model Checking (BMC), a counterexample is constructed from a satisfying assignment to a Boolean formula, typically in CNF. Modern SAT solvers usually assign values to all variables when the input formula is satisfiable. Deriving minimal satisfying assignments from such complete assignments does not lead to concise explanations of counterexamples because of how CNF formulae are derived from the models. Hence, we formulate the extraction of a succinct counterexample as the problem of finding a minimal assignment that, together with the Boolean formula describing the model, implies an objective. We present a two-stage algorithm for this problem, such that the result of each stage contributes to identify the “interesting” events that cause the failure. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with an example and with experimental results.