skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Effectful program distancing

Published:12 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Semantics is traditionally concerned with program equivalence, in which all pairs of programs which are not equivalent are treated the same, and simply dubbed as incomparable. In recent years, various forms of program metrics have been introduced such that the distance between non-equivalent programs is measured as an element of an appropriate quantale. By letting the underlying quantale vary as the type of the compared programs become more complex, the recently introduced framework of differential logical relations allows for a new contextual form of reasoning. In this paper, we show that all this can be generalised to effectful higher-order programs, in which not only the values, but also the effects computations produce can be appropriately distanced in a principled way. We show that the resulting framework is flexible, allowing various forms of effects to be handled, and that it provides compact and informative judgments about program differences.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Auxiliary Presentation Video

This is a short video presentation of the paper "Effectful Program Distancing" presented at POPL 2022.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Luca Cardelli, and Pierre-Louis Curien. 1993. Formal Parametric Polymorphism. Theor. Comput. Sci., 121, 1&2 (1993), 9–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(93)90082-5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Harold Abelson and Gerald J. Sussman. 1996. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, Second Edition. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alejandro Aguirre, Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Deepak Garg, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2019. A relational logic for higher-order programs. J. Funct. Program., 29 (2019), e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796819000145 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Mario Alvarez-Picallo and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2019. Change Actions: Models of Generalised Differentiation. In Proc. of FOSSACS 2019. 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17127-8_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Roland Carl Backhouse and Paul F. Hoogendijk. 1993. Elements of a Relational Theory of Datatypes. In Formal Program Development - IFIP TC2/WG 2.1 State-of-the-Art Report. 7–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Paolo Baldan, Filippo Bonchi, Henning Kerstan, and Barbara König. 2018. Coalgebraic Behavioral Metrics. Log. Methods Comput. Sci., 14, 3 (2018), https://doi.org/10.23638/LMCS-14(3:20)2018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. Barr. 1970. Relational algebras. Lect. Notes Math., 137 (1970), 39–55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Gilles Barthe, Thomas Espitau, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2018. Proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic programs. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 2, POPL (2018), 57:1–57:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3158145 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias, Justin Hsu, César Kunz, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2014. Proving Differential Privacy in Hoare Logic. In Proc. of CSF 2014. 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSF.2014.36 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias, Justin Hsu, Aaron Roth, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2015. Higher-Order Approximate Relational Refinement Types for Mechanism Design and Differential Privacy. In Proc. of POPL 2015. 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676726.2677000 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2016. Proving Differential Privacy via Probabilistic Couplings. In Proc. of LICS 2016. 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1145/2933575.2934554 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gilles Barthe, Boris Köpf, Federico Olmedo, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2013. Probabilistic Relational Reasoning for Differential Privacy. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 35, 3 (2013), 9:1–9:49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2492061 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nick Benton. 2004. Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations. In Proc. of POPL 2004. 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Richard S. Bird and Oege de Moor. 1997. Algebra of programming. Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Brett Boston, Adrian Sampson, Dan Grossman, and Luis Ceze. 2015. Probability type inference for flexible approximate programming. In Proc. of OOPSLA 2015. 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1145/2814270.2814301 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yufei Cai, Paolo G. Giarrusso, Tillmann Rendel, and Klaus Ostermann. 2014. A theory of changes for higher-order languages: incrementalizing λ -calculi by static differentiation. In Proc. of PLDI ’14. 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594304 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michael Carbin, Deokhwan Kim, Sasa Misailovic, and Martin C. Rinard. 2012. Proving acceptability properties of relaxed nondeterministic approximate programs. In Proc. of PLDI 2012. 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1145/2254064.2254086 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Michael Carbin, Sasa Misailovic, and Martin C. Rinard. 2013. Verifying quantitative reliability for programs that execute on unreliable hardware. In Proc. of OOPSLA 2013. 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/2509136.2509546 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis, Daniel Gebler, Catuscia Palamidessi, and Lili Xu. 2014. Generalized Bisimulation Metrics. In Proc. of CONCUR 2014. 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44584-6_4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Swarat Chaudhuri, Sumit Gulwani, and Roberto Lublinerman. 2010. Continuity analysis of programs. In Proc. of POPL 2010. 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/1706299.1706308 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Swarat Chaudhuri, Sumit Gulwani, Roberto Lublinerman, and Sara NavidPour. 2011. Proving programs robust. In Proc. of SIGSOFT/FSE’11. 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025131 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ezgi Çiçek, Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Deepak Garg, and Jan Hoffmann. 2017. Relational cost analysis. In Proc. of POPL 2017. 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1145/3009837.3009858 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Maria Manuel Clementino, Dirk Hofmann, and Walter Tholen. 2004. One Setting for All: Metric, Topology, Uniformity, Approach Structure. Appl. Categorical Struct., 12, 2 (2004), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APCS.0000018144.87456.10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Raphaëlle Crubillé and Ugo Dal Lago. 2015. Metric Reasoning about λ -Terms: The Affine Case. In Proc. of LICS 2015. 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2015.64 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Raphaëlle Crubillé and Ugo Dal Lago. 2017. Metric Reasoning About λ -Terms: The General Case. In Proc. of ESOP 2017. 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_13 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2019. Effectful Normal Form Bisimulation. In Proc. of ESOP 2019. 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17184-1_10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2019. On Bisimilarity in Lambda Calculi with Continuous Probabilistic Choice. In Proc. of MFPS 2019. 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2019.09.007 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2020. Differential Logical Relations Part II: Increments and Derivatives. In Proc. of ICTCS 2020. 101–114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2021. Differential logical relations, part II increments and derivatives. Theoretical Computer Science, issn:0304-3975 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2021.09.027 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2021. Resource Transition Systems and Full Abstraction for Linear Higher-Order Effectful Programs. In Proc. of FSCD 2021 (LIPIcs, Vol. 195). 23:1–23:19. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2021.23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ugo Dal Lago and Francesco Gavazzo. 2022. A Relational Theory of Effects and Coeffects. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 6, POPL (2022), 36:1–36:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498692 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ugo Dal Lago, Francesco Gavazzo, and Paul Blain Levy. 2017. Effectful applicative bisimilarity: Monads, relators, and Howe’s method. In Proc. of LICS 2017. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2017.8005117 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Ugo Dal Lago, Francesco Gavazzo, and Ryo Tanaka. 2017. Effectful Applicative Similarity for Call-by-Name Lambda Calculi. In Proc. of ICTCS 2017. 87–98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ugo Dal Lago, Francesco Gavazzo, and Ryo Tanaka. 2020. Effectful applicative similarity for call-by-name lambda calculi. Theor. Comput. Sci., 813 (2020), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2019.12.025 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ugo Dal Lago, Francesco Gavazzo, and Akira Yoshimizu. 2019. Differential Logical Relations, Part I: The Simply-Typed Case. In Proc. of ICALP 2019. 111:1–111:14. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.111 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Ugo Dal Lago, Davide Sangiorgi, and Michele Alberti. 2014. On coinductive equivalences for higher-order probabilistic functional programs. In Proc. of POPL 2014. 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1145/2535838.2535872 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Loris D’Antoni, Marco Gaboardi, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias, Andreas Haeberlen, and Benjamin C. Pierce. 2013. Sensitivity analysis using type-based constraints. In Proc. of F[email protected] 2013. 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505351.2505353 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. B.A. Davey and H.A. Priestley. 1990. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. A.A. de Amorim, M. Gaboardi, J. Hsu, S. Katsumata, and I. Cherigui. 2017. A semantic account of metric preservation. In Proc. of POPL 2017. 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1145/3009837.3009890 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Arthur Azevedo de Amorim, Marco Gaboardi, Justin Hsu, and Shin-ya Katsumata. 2019. Probabilistic Relational Reasoning via Metrics. In Proc. of LICS 2019. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2019.8785715 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Y. Deng. 2015. Semantics of Probabilistic Processes: An Operational Approach. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Josee Desharnais, Vineet Gupta, Radha Jagadeesan, and Prakash Panangaden. 2004. Metrics for labelled Markov processes. Theor. Comput. Sci., 318, 3 (2004), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2003.09.013 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. W. Du, Y. Deng, and D. Gebler. 2016. Behavioural Pseudometrics for Nondeterministic Probabilistic Systems. In Proc. of SETTA 2016. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47677-3_5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Vladimir Estivill-Castro and Derick Wood. 1992. A Survey of Adaptive Sorting Algorithms. ACM Comput. Surv., 24, 4 (1992), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/146370.146381 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Bob Flagg and Ralph Kopperman. 1997. Continuity Spaces: Reconciling Domains and Metric Spaces. Theor. Comput. Sci., 177, 1 (1997), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(97)00236-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Marco Gaboardi, Andreas Haeberlen, Justin Hsu, Arjun Narayan, and Benjamin C. Pierce. 2013. Linear dependent types for differential privacy. In Proc. of POPL. 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/2429069.2429113 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Francesco Gavazzo. 2018. Quantitative Behavioural Reasoning for Higher-order Effectful Programs: Applicative Distances. In Proc. of LICS 2018. 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209149 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Francesco Gavazzo. 2019. Coinductive Equivalences and Metrics for Higher-order Languages with Algebraic Effects. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Bologna, Italy. http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/9075/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Daniel Gebler, Kim G. Larsen, and Simone Tini. 2016. Compositional bisimulation metric reasoning with Probabilistic Process Calculi. Log. Methods Comput. Sci., 12, 4 (2016), https://doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-12(4:12)2016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. P.G. Giarrusso. 2018. Optimizing and incrementalizing higher-order collection queries by AST transformation. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Tübingen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Robert Harper. 2016. Practical Foundations for Programming Languages (2nd. Ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. D. Hoffman. 2015. A cottage industry of lax extensions. Categories and General Algebraic Structures with Applications, 3, 1 (2015), 113–151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. D. Hofmann. 2007. Topological theories and closed objects. Adv. Math., 215 (2007), 789–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2007.04.013 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. 2014. Monoidal Topology. A Categorical Approach to Order, Metric, and Topology, D. Hofmann, G.J. Seal, and W. Tholen (Eds.) (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Shin-ya Katsumata, Tetsuya Sato, and Tarmo Uustalu. 2018. Codensity Lifting of Monads and its Dual. Log. Methods Comput. Sci., 14, 4 (2018), https://doi.org/10.23638/LMCS-14(4:6)2018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. A. Kurz and J. Velebil. 2016. Relation lifting, a survey. J. Log. Algebr. Meth. Program., 85, 4 (2016), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2015.08.002 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Kim Guldstrand Larsen and Arne Skou. 1989. Bisimulation Through Probabilistic Testing. In Proceedings of POPL 1989. 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/75277.75307 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. F.W. Lawvere. 1973. Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories. Rend. Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano, 43 (1973), 135–166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. P.B. Levy, J. Power, and H. Thielecke. 2003. Modelling Environments in Call-by-Value Programming Languages. Inf. Comput., 185, 2 (2003), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-5401(03)00088-9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. S. MacLane. 1971. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ernest G. Manes. 2002. Taut Monads and T0-spaces. Theor. Comput. Sci., 275, 1-2 (2002), 79–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(00)00415-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Sasa Misailovic, Daniel M. Roy, and Martin C. Rinard. 2011. Probabilistically Accurate Program Transformations. In Proc. of SAS. 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_24 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Sparsh Mittal. 2016. A Survey of Techniques for Approximate Computing. ACM Comput. Surv., 48, 4 (2016), Article 62, 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2893356 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Eugenio Moggi. 1989. Computational Lambda-Calculus and Monads. In Proc. of LICS 1989. IEEE Computer Society, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.1989.39155 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam D. Smith. 2007. Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis. In Proc. of STOC 2007. 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/1250790.1250803 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Paolo Pistone. 2021. On Generalized Metric Spaces for the Simply Typed Lambda-Calculus. In Proc. of LICS 2021. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS52264.2021.9470696 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Gordon D. Plotkin. 1973. Lambda-Definability and Logical Relations. Memorandum SAI-RM-4, University of EdinburghGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Gordon D. Plotkin and John Power. 2001. Adequacy for Algebraic Effects. In Proc. of FOSSACS 2001. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45315-6_1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Weihao Qu, Marco Gaboardi, and Deepak Garg. 2019. Relational cost analysis for functional-imperative programs. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 3, ICFP (2019), 92:1–92:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341696 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Ivan Radicek, Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Deepak Garg, and Florian Zuleger. 2018. Monadic refinements for relational cost analysis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 2, POPL (2018), 36:1–36:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3158124 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Ganesan Ramalingam and Thomas W. Reps. 1993. A Categorized Bibliography on Incremental Computation. In Proc. of POPL 1993. 502–510. https://doi.org/10.1145/158511.158710 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. J. Reed and B.C. Pierce. 2010. Distance makes the types grow stronger: a calculus for differential privacy. In Proc. of ICFP 2010. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1145/1863543.1863568 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. C.H. Richardson. 1954. An Introduction to the Calculus of Finite Differences. New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Martin C. Rinard. 2011. Probabilistic accuracy bounds for perforated programs: a new foundation for program analysis and transformation. In Proceedings of PEPM 2011. 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929501.1929517 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Adrian Sampson, Werner Dietl, Emily Fortuna, Danushen Gnanapragasam, Luis Ceze, and Dan Grossman. 2011. EnerJ: approximate data types for safe and general low-power computation. In Proc. of PLDI 2011. 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993498.1993518 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Adrian Sampson, Pavel Panchekha, Todd Mytkowicz, Kathryn S. McKinley, Dan Grossman, and Luis Ceze. 2014. Expressing and verifying probabilistic assertions. In Proc. of PLDI 2014. 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594294 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. D. Sands. 1998. Improvement Theory and Its Applications. In Higher Order Operational Techniques in Semantics, A. D. Gordon and A. M. Pitts (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 275–306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Tetsuya Sato, Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Justin Hsu, and Shin-ya Katsumata. 2019. Approximate Span Liftings: Compositional Semantics for Relaxations of Differential Privacy. In Proc. of LICS 2019. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2019.8785668 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. R. Sedgewick and P. Flajolet. 2013. An Introduction to the Analysis of Algorithms. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos, Sasa Misailovic, Henry Hoffmann, and Martin C. Rinard. 2011. Managing performance vs. accuracy trade-offs with loop perforation. In Proc. of SIGSOFT/FSE’11. 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025133 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. V. Strassen. 1965. The existence of probability measures with given marginals. Ann. Math. Statist., 36, 2 (1965), 423–439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. A.M. Thijs. 1996. Simulation and fixpoint semantics. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. F. Van Breugel and J. Worrell. 2005. A behavioural pseudometric for probabilistic transition systems. Theor. Comput. Sci., 331, 1 (2005), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2004.09.035 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. C. Villani. 2008. Optimal Transport: Old and New. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Edwin M. Westbrook and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2013. A Semantics for Approximate Program Transformations. CoRR, abs/1304.5531 (2013), arxiv:1304.5531Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Hang Zhang, Mateja Putic, and John Lach. 2014. Low Power GPGPU Computation with Imprecise Hardware. In The 51st Annual Design Automation Conference 2014, DAC ’14, San Francisco, CA, USA, June 1-5, 2014. 99:1–99:6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593069.2593156 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Hengchu Zhang, Edo Roth, Andreas Haeberlen, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Aaron Roth. 2019. Fuzzi: a three-level logic for differential privacy. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 3, ICFP (2019), 93:1–93:28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Zeyuan Allen Zhu, Sasa Misailovic, Jonathan A. Kelner, and Martin C. Rinard. 2012. Randomized accuracy-aware program transformations for efficient approximate computations. In Proc. of POPL 2012, John Field and Michael Hicks (Eds.). ACM, 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35632-2_26 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Effectful program distancing

    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!