skip to main content
research-article

A Fast Method to Compute Disjunctive Quadratic Invariants of Numerical Programs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We introduce a new method to compute non-convex invariants of numerical programs, which includes the class of switched affine systems with affine guards. We obtain disjunctive and non-convex invariants by associating different partial execution traces with different ellipsoids. A key ingredient is the solution of non-monotone fixed points problems over the space of ellipsoids with a reduction to small size linear matrix inequalities. This allows us to analyze instances that are inaccessible in terms of expressivity or scale by earlier methods based on semi-definite programming.

References

  1. A. Adjé and P.-L. Garoche. 2015. Automatic Synthesis of Piecewise Linear Quadratic Invariants for Programs. In Proceedings of VMCAI. 99--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Adjé, S. Gaubert, and E. Goubault. 2010. Coupling policy iteration with semi-definite relaxation to compute accurate numerical invariants in static analysis. In (ESOP 2010). Number 6012 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 23--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. A. Ahmadi, R. M. Jungers, P. A. Parrilo, and M. Roozbehani. 2014. Joint Spectral Radius and Path-complete Graph Lyapunov Functions. SIAM J. Control and Optimization 52, 1 (2014), 687--717.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. X. Allamigeon, S. Gaubert, E. Goubault, S. Putot, and N. Stott. 2016. A Scalable Algebraic Method to Infer Quadratic Invariants of Switched Systems. ACM Trans. Embedded Comput. Syst. 15, 4 (2016), 69:1--69:20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Koenraad M. R. Audenaert. 2013. Schur multiplier norms for Loewner matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 439, 9 (2013), 2598--2608.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Ben-Tal and A. S. Nemirovskiaei. 2001. Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analysis, Algorithms, and Engineering Applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Robert G. Bland, Donald Goldfarb, and Michael J. Todd. 1981. The ellipsoid method: A survey. Operations Research 29, 6 (1981), 1039--1091. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. D. Blondel and J. N. Tsitsiklis. 2000. A survey of computational complexity results in systems and control. Automatica 36 (2000), 1249--1274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Silvére Bonnabel and Rodolphe Sepulchre. 2010. Riemannian metric and geometric mean for positive semidefinite matrices of fixed rank. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 31, 3 (2010), 1055--1070.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. F. Bourdoncle. 1992. Abstract interpretation by dynamic partitioning. J. Funct. Program. 2, 4 (1992), 407--423.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan. 1994. Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. Studies in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 15. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. S. Branicky. 1998. Multiple lyapunov functions and other analysis tools for switched and hybrid systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 43, 4 (Apr 1998), 475--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. H. Busemann. 1950. The foundations of minkowskian geometry.Commentarii mathematici Helvetici 24 (1950), 156--187. http://eudml.org/doc/139004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. P. Cousot. 2005. Proving program invariance and termination by parametric abstraction, lagrangian relaxation and semidefinite programming. In VMCAI 2005, Paris, France, January 17-19, 2005, Proceedings. 1--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. 1977. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’77). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. 1978. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In Proceedings of POPL’78. ACM, 84--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. de Klerk and F. Vallentin. 2016. On the turing model complexity of interior point methods for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 26, 3 (2016), 1944--1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. A. Deutsch. 1990. On determining lifetime and aliasing of dynamically allocated data in higher-order functional specifications. In Conference Record of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Francisco, California, USA, January 1990. 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Feret. 2004. Static analysis of digital filters. In Proceedings of ESOP’04. 33--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. E. Feron and F. Alegre. 2008. Control software analysis, part I Open-loop properties. CoRR abs/0809.4812 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Martin Gawlitza, H. Seidl, A. Adjé, S. Gaubert, and E. Goubault. 2012. Abstract interpretation meets convex optimization. J. Symb. Comput. 47, 12 (2012), 1416--1446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Giacobazzi and F. Ranzato. 1998. Optimal domains for disjunctive abstract interpretation. Science of Computer Programming 32, 1-3 (1998), 177--210. 6th European Symposium on Programming. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. E. Goubault and S. Putot. 2009. A zonotopic framework for functional abstractions. CoRR abs/0910.1763 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Stingl J. Fiala, M. Koċvara. 2013. PENLAB: A MATLAB solver for nonlinear semidefinite optimization. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. B. Jeannet, N. Halbwachs, and P. Raymond. 1999. Dynamic partitioning in analyses of numerical properties. In Static Analysis, 6th International Symposium, SAS’99, Venice, Italy, September 22-24, 1999, Proceedings. 39--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. V. Kadison. 1951. Order properties of bounded self-adjoint operators. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2, 3 (1951), 505--510. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2031784.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. J. Löfberg. 2004. YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference. Taipei, Taiwan.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. M. Martel. 2003. Improving the static analysis of loops by dynamic partitioning techniques. In (SCAM 2003), 26-27 September 2003, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 13--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. L. Mauborgne and X. Rival. 2005. Trace partitioning in abstract interpretation based static analyzers. In European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’05) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), M. Sagiv (Ed.), Vol. 3444. Springer-Verlag, 5--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. A. Miné. 2004. Weakly Relational Numerical Abstract Domains. Ph.D. Dissertation. École Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. A. Miné. 2006. Symbolic methods to enhance the precision of numerical abstract domains. In VMCAI 2006, Charleston, SC, USA, January 8-10, 2006, Proceedings. 348--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Müller-Olm and H. Seidl. 2004. Computing polynomial program invariants. Inf. Process. Lett. 91, 5 (2004), 233--244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. P. Nilsson, U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and J. Newling. 2013. Invariant sets of defocused switched systems. In Conference of Decision and Control.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Oulamara and A. J. Venet. 2015. CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24, 2015, Proceedings, Part I. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Chapter Abstract Interpretation with Higher-Dimensional Ellipsoids and Conic Extrapolation, 415--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. E. Rodríguez-Carbonell and D. Kapur. 2007. Automatic generation of polynomial invariants of bounded degree using abstract interpretation. Sci. Comput. Program. 64, 1 (2007), 54--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. P. Roux and P.-L. Garoche. 2013. Integrating policy iterations in abstract interpreters. In ATVA (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), D. Van Hung and M. Ogawa (Eds.), Vol. 8172. Springer, 240--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. P. Roux, R. Jobredeaux, P.-L. Garoche, and E. Feron. 2012. A generic ellipsoid abstract domain for linear time invariant systems. In Proceedings of HSCC. 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Pierre Roux, Yuen-Lam Voronin, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2016. Validating Numerical Semidefinite Programming Solvers for Polynomial Invariants. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 424--446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. S. Sankaranarayanan, H. B. Sipma, and Z. Manna. 2005. Scalable analysis of linear systems using mathematical programming. In The Sixth International Conference on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’05) (LNCS), Vol. 3385. 25--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. P. Sotin, B. Jeannet, F. Védrine, and E. Goubault. 2011. Policy Iteration within Logico-Numerical Abstract Domains. 290--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. R. H. Tütüncü, K. C. Toh, and M. J. Todd. 2003. Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using SDPT3. Mathematical Programming 95, 2 (2003), 189--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. A. Venet. 1996. Abstract cofibered domains: Application to the alias analysis of untyped programs. In Static Analysis, Third International Symposium, SAS’96, Aachen, Germany, September 24-26, 1996, Proceedings. 366--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. A. Venet. 2002. Nonuniform alias analysis of recursive data structures and arrays. In Static Analysis, 9th International Symposium, SAS 2002, Madrid, Spain, September 17-20, 2002, Proceedings. 36--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Fast Method to Compute Disjunctive Quadratic Invariants of Numerical Programs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!