MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390604697 · doi:10.1145/3632925

Commutativity Simplifies Proofs of Parameterized Programs

2024· article· en· W4390604697 on OpenAlexaff
Azadeh Farzan, Dominik Klumpp, Andreas Podelski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameterized complexityMathematical proofComputer scienceThread (computing)Theoretical computer scienceProgramming languageCommutative propertySoundnessBounded functionParametric statisticsConcurrencyReduction (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commutativity has proven to be a powerful tool in reasoning about concurrent programs. Recent work has shown that a commutativity-based reduction of a program may admit simpler proofs than the program itself. The framework of lexicographical program reductions was introduced to formalize a broad class of reductions which accommodate sequential (thread-local) reasoning as well as synchronous programs. Approaches based on this framework, however, were fundamentally limited to program models with a fixed/bounded number of threads. In this paper, we show that it is possible to define an effective parametric family of program reductions that can be used to find simple proofs for parameterized programs , i.e., for programs with an unbounded number of threads. We show that reductions are indeed useful for the simplification of proofs for parameterized programs, in a sense that can be made precise: A reduction of a parameterized program may admit a proof which uses fewer or less sophisticated ghost variables. The reduction may therefore be within reach of an automated verification technique, even when the original parameterized program is not. As our first technical contribution, we introduce a notion of reductions for parameterized programs such that the reduction R of a parameterized program P is again a parameterized program (the thread template of R is obtained by source-to-source transformation of the thread template of P ). Consequently, existing techniques for the verification of parameterized programs can be directly applied to R instead of P . Our second technical contribution is that we define an appropriate family of pairwise preference orders which can be effectively used as a parameter to produce different lexicographical reductions. To determine whether this theoretical foundation amounts to a usable solution in practice, we have implemented the approach, based on a recently proposed framework for parameterized program verification. The results of our preliminary experiments on a representative set of examples are encouraging.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207