TY - GEN
T1 - What’s Decidable About Program Verification Modulo Axioms?
AU - Mathur, Umang
AU - Madhusudan, P.
AU - Viswanathan, Mahesh
N1 - Funding Information:
⋆ Umang Mathur is partially supported by a Google PhD Fellowship. P. Madhusudan is partially supported by NSFCCF 1527395. Mahesh Viswanathan is partially supported by NSF CCF 1901069.
Funding Information:
★Umang Mathur is partially supported by a Google PhD Fellowship. P. Madhusu-dan is partially supported by NSF CCF 1527395. Mahesh Viswanathan is partially supported by NSF CCF 1901069
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, The Author(s).
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - We consider the decidability of the verification problem of programs modulo axioms — automatically verifying whether programs satisfy their assertions, when the function and relation symbols are interpreted as arbitrary functions and relations that satisfy a set of first-order axioms. Though verification of uninterpreted programs (with no axioms) is already undecidable, a recent work introduced a subclass of coherent uninterpreted programs, and showed that they admit decidable verification [26]. We undertake a systematic study of various natural axioms for relations and functions, and study the decidability of the coherent verification problem. Axioms include relations being reflexive, symmetric, transitive, or total order relations, functions restricted to being associative, idempotent or commutative, and combinations of such axioms as well. Our comprehensive results unearth a rich landscape that shows that though several axiom classes admit decidability for coherent programs, coherence is not a panacea as several others continue to be undecidable.
AB - We consider the decidability of the verification problem of programs modulo axioms — automatically verifying whether programs satisfy their assertions, when the function and relation symbols are interpreted as arbitrary functions and relations that satisfy a set of first-order axioms. Though verification of uninterpreted programs (with no axioms) is already undecidable, a recent work introduced a subclass of coherent uninterpreted programs, and showed that they admit decidable verification [26]. We undertake a systematic study of various natural axioms for relations and functions, and study the decidability of the coherent verification problem. Axioms include relations being reflexive, symmetric, transitive, or total order relations, functions restricted to being associative, idempotent or commutative, and combinations of such axioms as well. Our comprehensive results unearth a rich landscape that shows that though several axiom classes admit decidability for coherent programs, coherence is not a panacea as several others continue to be undecidable.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084003257&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85084003257&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_10
DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_10
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85084003257
SN - 9783030452360
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 158
EP - 177
BT - Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems- 26th International Conference, TACAS 2020, held as part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2020, Proceedings, Part II
A2 - Biere, Armin
A2 - Parker, David
PB - Springer
T2 - 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS 2020, held as part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2020
Y2 - 25 April 2020 through 30 April 2020
ER -