skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

Learning the boundary of inductive invariants

Published:04 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study the complexity of invariant inference and its connections to exact concept learning. We define a condition on invariants and their geometry, called the fence condition, which permits applying theoretical results from exact concept learning to answer open problems in invariant inference theory. The condition requires the invariant's boundary---the states whose Hamming distance from the invariant is one---to be backwards reachable from the bad states in a small number of steps. Using this condition, we obtain the first polynomial complexity result for an interpolation-based invariant inference algorithm, efficiently inferring monotone DNF invariants with access to a SAT solver as an oracle. We further harness Bshouty's seminal result in concept learning to efficiently infer invariants of a larger syntactic class of invariants beyond monotone DNF. Lastly, we consider the robustness of inference under program transformations. We show that some simple transformations preserve the fence condition, and that it is sensitive to more complex transformations.

References

  1. Azza Abouzied, Dana Angluin, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Joseph M. Hellerstein, and Avi Silberschatz. 2013. Learning and verifying quantified boolean queries by example. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2013, New York, NY, USA-June 22-27, 2013. 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2463664.2465220 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Howard Aizenstein and Leonard Pitt. 1995. On The Learnability Of Disjunctive Normal Form Formulas. Mach. Learn. 19, 3 ( 1995 ), 183-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996269 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aws Albarghouthi and Kenneth L. McMillan. 2013. Beautiful Interpolants. In Computer Aided Verification-25th International Conference, CAV 2013, Saint Petersburg, Russia, July 13-19, 2013. Proceedings. 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rajeev Alur, Rastislav Bodík, Eric Dallal, Dana Fisman, Pranav Garg, Garvit Juniwal, Hadas Kress-Gazit, P. Madhusudan, Milo M. K. Martin, Mukund Raghothaman, Shambwaditya Saha, Sanjit A. Seshia, Rishabh Singh, Armando Solar-Lezama, Emina Torlak, and Abhishek Udupa. 2015. Syntax-Guided Synthesis. In Dependable Software Systems Engineering. 1-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dana Angluin. 1987. Queries and Concept Learning. Machine Learning 2, 4 ( 1987 ), 319-342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dana Angluin, Lisa Hellerstein, and Marek Karpinski. 1993. Learning Read-Once Formulas with Queries. J. ACM 40, 1 ( 1993 ), 185-210. https://doi.org/10.1145/138027.138061 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marta Arias. 2004. Exact learning of first-order horn expressions from queries. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tufts University, Medford, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund M. Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. 1999. Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, 5th International Conference, TACAS '99, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on the Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS'99, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 22-28, 1999, Proceedings. 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nikolaj Bjørner, Arie Gurfinkel, Konstantin Korovin, and Ori Lahav. 2013. Instantiations, Zippers and EPR Interpolation. In LPAR 2013, 19th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, December 12-17, 2013, Stellenbosch, South Africa, Short papers proceedings. 35-41. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/XtNGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cristina Borralleras, Marc Brockschmidt, Daniel Larraz, Albert Oliveras, Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell, and Albert Rubio. 2017. Proving Termination Through Conditional Termination. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems-23rd International Conference, TACAS 2017, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29, 2017, Proceedings, Part I. 99-117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Aaron R. Bradley. 2011. SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation-12th International Conference, VMCAI 2011, Austin, TX, USA, January 23-25, 2011. Proceedings. 70-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nader H. Bshouty. 1995. Exact Learning Boolean Function via the Monotone Theory. Inf. Comput. 123, 1 ( 1995 ), 146-153. https://doi.org/10.1006/inco. 1995.1164 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nader H. Bshouty. 1997. Simple Learning Algorithms Using Divide and Conquer. Comput. Complex. 6, 2 ( 1997 ), 174-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01262930 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Nader H. Bshouty. 2018. Exact learning from an honest teacher that answers membership queries. Theor. Comput. Sci. 733 ( 2018 ), 4-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs. 2018. 04.034 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ashok K. Chandra and George Markowsky. 1978. On the number of prime implicants. Discret. Math. 24, 1 ( 1978 ), 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0012-365X ( 78 ) 90168-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yu-Fang Chen, Edmund M. Clarke, Azadeh Farzan, Ming-Hsien Tsai, Yih-Kuen Tsay, and Bow-Yaw Wang. 2010. Automated Assume-Guarantee Reasoning through Implicit Learning. In Computer Aided Verification, 22nd International Conference, CAV 2010, Edinburgh, UK, July 15-19, 2010. Proceedings. 511-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_44 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hana Chockler, Alexander Ivrii, and Arie Matsliah. 2012. Computing Interpolants without Proofs. In Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing-8th International Haifa Verification Conference, HVC 2012, Haifa, Israel, November 6-8, 2012. Revised Selected Papers. 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39611-3_12 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Alessandro Cimatti, Alberto Griggio, and Roberto Sebastiani. 2010. Eficient generation of craig interpolants in satisfiability modulo theories. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 12, 1 ( 2010 ), 7 : 1-7 : 54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1838552.1838559 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. William Craig. 1957. Linear Reasoning. A New Form of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem. J. Symbolic Logic 22, 3 ( 09 1957 ), 250-268. https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.jsl/1183732823Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Yves Crama and Peter L. Hammer. 2011. Boolean Functions-Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, Vol. 142. Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/ item6222210/?site_locale=en_GBGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. John Cyphert, Jason Breck, Zachary Kincaid, and Thomas W. Reps. 2019. Refinement of path expressions for static analysis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3, POPL ( 2019 ), 45 : 1-45 : 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290358 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Isil Dillig, Thomas Dillig, Boyang Li, and Kenneth L. McMillan. 2013. Inductive invariant generation via abductive inference. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages & Applications, OOPSLA 2013, part of SPLASH 2013, Indianapolis, IN, USA, October 26-31, 2013. 443-456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Samuel Drews and Aws Albarghouthi. 2016. Efectively Propositional Interpolants. In Computer Aided Verification-28th International Conference, CAV 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23, 2016, Proceedings, Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Swarat Chaudhuri and Azadeh Farzan (Eds.), Vol. 9780. Springer, 210-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_12 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Niklas Eén, Alan Mishchenko, and Robert K. Brayton. 2011. Eficient implementation of property directed reachability. In International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD '11, Austin, TX, USA, October 30-November 02, 2011. 125-134. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2157675Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Grigory Fedyukovich and Rastislav Bodík. 2018. Accelerating Syntax-Guided Invariant Synthesis. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems-24th International Conference, TACAS 2018, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 14-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part I. 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89960-2_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Yotam M. Y. Feldman, Neil Immerman, Mooly Sagiv, and Sharon Shoham. 2020. Complexity and information in invariant inference. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 4, POPL ( 2020 ), 5 : 1-5 : 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371073 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yotam M. Y. Feldman, Mooly Sagiv, Sharon Shoham, and James R. Wilcox. 2021. Learning the Boundary of Inductive Invariants. CoRR abs/ 2008.09909 ( 2021 ). https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2008.09909Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Yotam M. Y. Feldman, James R. Wilcox, Sharon Shoham, and Mooly Sagiv. 2019. Inferring Inductive Invariants from Phase Structures. In Computer Aided Verification-31st International Conference, CAV 2019, New York City, NY, USA, July 15-18, 2019, Proceedings, Part II. 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25543-5_23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jean-Christophe Filliâtre, Léon Gondelman, and Andrei Paskevich. 2016. The spirit of ghost code. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 48, 3 ( 2016 ), 152-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-016-0243-x Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Cormac Flanagan and K. Rustan M. Leino. 2001. Houdini, an Annotation Assistant for ESC/Java. In FME 2001: Formal Methods for Increasing Software Productivity, International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Berlin, Germany, March 12-16, 2001, Proceedings. 500-517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Cormac Flanagan and Shaz Qadeer. 2002. Predicate abstraction for software verification. In Conference Record of POPL 2002 : The 29th SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Portland, OR, USA, January 16-18, 2002. 191-202. https://doi.org/10.1145/503272.503291 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Pranav Garg, Christof Löding, P Madhusudan, and Daniel Neider. 2014. ICE: A robust framework for learning invariants. In Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 69-87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pranav Garg, Daniel Neider, P. Madhusudan, and Dan Roth. 2016. Learning invariants using decision trees and implication counterexamples. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 20-22, 2016. 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1145/2837614.2837664 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Roberto Giacobazzi, Francesco Logozzo, and Francesco Ranzato. 2015. Analyzing Program Analyses. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2015, Mumbai, India, January 15-17, 2015, Sriram K. Rajamani and David Walker (Eds.). ACM, 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676726.2676987 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Susanne Graf and Hassen Saïdi. 1997. Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS. In Computer Aided Verification, 9th International Conference, CAV '97, Haifa, Israel, June 22-25, 1997, Proceedings. 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63166-6_10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Arie Gurfinkel, Sharon Shoham, and Yuri Meshman. 2016. SMT-based verification of parameterized systems. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18, 2016. 338-348. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950330 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Shachar Itzhaky, Nikolaj Bjørner, Thomas W. Reps, Mooly Sagiv, and Aditya V. Thakur. 2014. Property-Directed Shape Analysis. In Computer Aided Verification-26th International Conference, CAV 2014, Held as Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic, VSL 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 18-22, 2014. Proceedings. 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Susmit Jha, Sumit Gulwani, Sanjit A. Seshia, and Ashish Tiwari. 2010. Oracle-guided component-based program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1, ICSE 2010, Cape Town, South Africa, 1-8 May 2010. 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806833 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yungbum Jung, Soonho Kong, Cristina David, Bow-Yaw Wang, and Kwangkeun Yi. 2015. Automatically inferring loop invariants via algorithmic learning. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 25, 4 ( 2015 ), 892-915. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129513000078 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Aleksandr Karbyshev, Nikolaj Bjørner, Shachar Itzhaky, Noam Rinetzky, and Sharon Shoham. 2017. Property-Directed Inference of Universal Invariants or Proving Their Absence. J. ACM 64, 1 ( 2017 ), 7 : 1-7 : 33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3022187 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Egor George Karpenkov, David Monniaux, and Philipp Wendler. 2016. Program Analysis with Local Policy Iteration. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation-17th International Conference, VMCAI 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 17-19, 2016. Proceedings. 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Jason R. Koenig, Oded Padon, Neil Immerman, and Alex Aiken. 2020. First-order quantified separators. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2020, London, UK, June 15-20, 2020, Alastair F. Donaldson and Emina Torlak (Eds.). ACM, 703-717. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3386018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Daniel Kroening and Georg Weissenbacher. 2007. Lifting Propositional Interpolants to the Word-Level. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, 7th International Conference, FMCAD 2007, Austin, Texas, USA, November 11-14, 2007, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAMCAD. 2007.13 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Shuvendu K. Lahiri and Shaz Qadeer. 2009. Complexity and Algorithms for Monomial and Clausal Predicate Abstraction. In Automated Deduction-CADE-22, 22nd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Montreal, Canada, August 2-7, 2009. Proceedings. 214-229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. K. Rustan M. Leino and Clément Pit-Claudel. 2016. Trigger Selection Strategies to Stabilize Program Verifiers. In Computer Aided Verification-28th International Conference, CAV 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23, 2016, Proceedings, Part I. 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41528-4_20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Francesco Logozzo, Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Manuel Fähndrich, and Sam Blackshear. 2014. Verification modulo versions: towards usable verification. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI '14, Edinburgh, United Kingdom-June 09-11, 2014, Michael F. P. O'Boyle and Keshav Pingali (Eds.). ACM, 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594326 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kenneth L. McMillan. 2003. Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking. In Computer Aided Verification, 15th International Conference, CAV 2003, Boulder, CO, USA, July 8-12, 2003, Proceedings. 1-13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kenneth L. McMillan. 2005. An interpolating theorem prover. Theor. Comput. Sci. 345, 1 ( 2005 ), 101-121. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tcs. 2005. 07.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Kenneth L. McMillan. 2006. Lazy Abstraction with Interpolants. In Computer Aided Verification, 18th International Conference, CAV 2006, Seattle, WA, USA, August 17-20, 2006, Proceedings. 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/11817963_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Kenneth L. McMillan. 2011. Interpolants from Z3 proofs. In International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD ' 11, Austin, TX, USA, October 30-November 02, 2011, Per Bjesse and Anna Slobodová (Eds.). FMCAD Inc., 19-27. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2157661Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Kenneth L. McMillan. 2018. Interpolation and Model Checking. In Handbook of Model Checking. 421-446. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Kedar S. Namjoshi. 2007. Symmetry and Completeness in the Analysis of Parameterized Systems. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, 8th International Conference, VMCAI 2007, Nice, France, January 14-16, 2007, Proceedings. 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69738-1_22 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Ryan O'Donnell. 2014. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/de/ academic/subjects/computer-science/ algorithmics-complexity-computer-algebra-and-computational-g/analysisboolean-functionsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. J. Ross Quinlan. 1986. Induction of Decision Trees. Mach. Learn. 1, 1 ( 1986 ), 81-106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022643204877 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Shmuel Sagiv, Thomas W. Reps, and Reinhard Wilhelm. 2002. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 24, 3 ( 2002 ), 217-298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Rahul Sharma and Alex Aiken. 2016. From invariant checking to invariant inference using randomized search. Formal Methods in System Design 48, 3 ( 2016 ), 235-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-016-0248-5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Rahul Sharma, Isil Dillig, Thomas Dillig, and Alex Aiken. 2011. Simplifying Loop Invariant Generation Using Splitter Predicates. In Computer Aided Verification-23rd International Conference, CAV 2011, Snowbird, UT, USA, July 14-20, 2011. Proceedings. 703-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_57 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Rahul Sharma, Saurabh Gupta, Bharath Hariharan, Alex Aiken, Percy Liang, and Aditya V. Nori. 2013b. A Data Driven Approach for Algebraic Loop Invariants. In Programming Languages and Systems-22nd European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2013, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24, 2013. Proceedings. 574-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_31 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Rahul Sharma, Saurabh Gupta, Bharath Hariharan, Alex Aiken, and Aditya V. Nori. 2013a. Verification as Learning Geometric Concepts. In Static Analysis-20th International Symposium, SAS 2013, Seattle, WA, USA, June 20-22, 2013. Proceedings. 388-411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Rahul Sharma, Aditya V. Nori, and Alex Aiken. 2012. Interpolants as Classifiers. In Computer Aided Verification-24th International Conference, CAV 2012, Berkeley, CA, USA, July 7-13, 2012 Proceedings. 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_11 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Robert H. Sloan, Balázs Szörényi, and György Turán. 2008. On k-Term DNF with the Largest Number of Prime Implicants. SIAM J. Discret. Math. 21, 4 ( 2008 ), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1137/050632026 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Saurabh Srivastava, Sumit Gulwani, and Jefrey S. Foster. 2013. Template-based program verification and program synthesis. STTT 15, 5-6 ( 2013 ), 497-518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Leslie G. Valiant. 1984. A Theory of the Learnable. Commun. ACM 27, 11 ( 1984 ), 1134-1142. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1968.1972 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Yakir Vizel, Arie Gurfinkel, and Sharad Malik. 2015a. Fast Interpolating BMC. In Computer Aided Verification-27th International Conference, CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24, 2015, Proceedings, Part I (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Daniel Kroening and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.), Vol. 9206. Springer, 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_43 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Yakir Vizel, Alexander Nadel, and Vadim Ryvchin. 2015b. Eficient generation of small interpolants in CNF. Syst. Des. 47, 1 ( 2015 ), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-015-0224-5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Douglas H Wiedemann. 1987. Hamming geometry. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Waterloo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Learning the boundary of inductive invariants

        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!