skip to main content
research-article
Open Access
Artifacts Available
Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic programs with randomized variable-dependent termination time

Published:20 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The notion of program sensitivity (aka Lipschitz continuity) specifies that changes in the program input result in proportional changes to the program output. For probabilistic programs the notion is naturally extended to expected sensitivity. A previous approach develops a relational program logic framework for proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic while loops, where the number of iterations is fixed and bounded. In this work, we consider probabilistic while loops where the number of iterations is not fixed, but randomized and depends on the initial input values. We present a sound approach for proving expected sensitivity of such programs. Our sound approach is martingale-based and can be automated through existing martingale-synthesis algorithms. Furthermore, our approach is compositional for sequential composition of while loops under a mild side condition. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on several classical examples from Gambler's Ruin, stochastic hybrid systems and stochastic gradient descent. We also present experimental results showing that our automated approach can handle various probabilistic programs in the literature.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a25-wang.webm

References

  1. Alessandro Abate, Joost-Pieter Katoen, John Lygeros, and Maria Prandini. 2010. Approximate Model Checking of Stochastic Hybrid Systems. Eur. J. Control 16, 6 (2010), 624–641. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Sheshansh Agrawal, Krishnendu Chatterjee, and Petr Novotný. 2018. Lexicographic ranking supermartingales: an efficient approach to termination of probabilistic programs. PACMPL 2, POPL (2018), 34:1–34:32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alejandro Aguirre, Gilles Barthe, Justin Hsu, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, and Christoph Matheja. 2019. Kantorovich Continuity of Probabilistic Programs. CoRR abs/1901.06540 (2019). arXiv: 1901.06540 http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1901.06540Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. David J. Aldous. 1983. Random walks on finite groups and rapidly mixing Markov chains. Séminaire de probabilités de Strasbourg 17 (1983), 243–297. http://www.numdam.org/item/SPS_1983__17__243_0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilles Barthe, François Dupressoir, Sebastian Faust, Benjamin Grégoire, François-Xavier Standaert, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2016. Parallel Implementations of Masking Schemes and the Bounded Moment Leakage Model. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016 (2016), 912. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/912Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilles Barthe, Thomas Espitau, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2018. Proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic programs. PACMPL 2, POPL (2018), 57:1–57:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gilles Barthe, Benjamin Grégoire, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2009. Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, Savannah, GA, USA, January 21-23, 2009. 90–101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gilles Barthe, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2017. Coupling proofs are probabilistic product programs. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017. 161–174. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3009896Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gilles Barthe, Boris Köpf, Federico Olmedo, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2012. Probabilistic relational reasoning for differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2012, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, January 22-28, 2012. 97–110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Patrick Billingsley. 1995. Probability and Measure. JOHN WILEY & SONS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Olivier Bousquet and André Elisseeff. 2002. Stability and Generalization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2 (2002), 499–526. http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v2/bousquet02a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Aleksandar Chakarov and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2013. Probabilistic Program Analysis with Martingales. In CAV 2013. 511–526.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Krishnendu Chatterjee. 2012. Robustness of Structurally Equivalent Concurrent Parity Games. In Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures - 15th International Conference, FOSSACS 2012, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 24 - April 1, 2012. Proceedings. 270–285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Hongfei Fu, and Amir Kafshdar Goharshady. 2016. Termination Analysis of Probabilistic Programs Through Positivstellensatz’s. In Computer Aided Verification - 28th International Conference, CAV 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23, 2016, Proceedings, Part I (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Swarat Chaudhuri and Azadeh Farzan (Eds.), Vol. 9779. Springer, 3–22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Hongfei Fu, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, and Nastaran Okati. 2018a. Computational Approaches for Stochastic Shortest Path on Succinct MDPs. In IJCAI 2018. 4700–4707.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Hongfei Fu, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, and Nastaran Okati. 2018b. Computational Approaches for Stochastic Shortest Path on Succinct MDPs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden. 4700–4707. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Hongfei Fu, Petr Novotný, and Rouzbeh Hasheminezhad. 2018c. Algorithmic Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Termination Problems for Affine Probabilistic Programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 40, 2 (2018), 7:1–7:45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Petr Novotný, and Ðorđe Žikelić. 2017. Stochastic invariants for probabilistic termination. In POPL 2017. 145–160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Swarat Chaudhuri, Sumit Gulwani, and Roberto Lublinerman. 2010. Continuity analysis of programs. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2010, Madrid, Spain, January 17-23, 2010. 57–70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Arthur Azevedo de Amorim, Marco Gaboardi, Justin Hsu, Shin-ya Katsumata, and Ikram Cherigui. 2017. A semantic account of metric preservation. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017. 545–556. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3009890Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Josee Desharnais, Vineet Gupta, Radha Jagadeesan, and Prakash Panangaden. 2004. Metrics for labelled Markov processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 318, 3 (2004), 323–354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Theory of Cryptography (TCC’06). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 265–284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth. 2014. The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 9, 3-4 (2014), 211–407. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hassan Eldib, Chao Wang, Mostafa M. I. Taha, and Patrick Schaumont. 2015. Quantitative Masking Strength: Quantifying the Power Side-Channel Resistance of Software Code. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 34, 10 (2015), 1558–1568. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Farkas. 1894. A Fourier-féle mechanikai elv alkalmazásai (Hungarian). Mathematikaiés Természettudományi Értesitö 12 (1894), 457–472.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yijun Feng, Lijun Zhang, David N. Jansen, Naijun Zhan, and Bican Xia. 2017. Finding Polynomial Loop Invariants for Probabilistic Programs. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis - 15th International Symposium, ATVA 2017, Pune, India, October 3-6, 2017, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Deepak D’Souza and K. Narayan Kumar (Eds.), Vol. 10482. Springer, 400–416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Hongfei Fu. 2012. Computing Game Metrics on Markov Decision Processes. In Automata, Languages, and Programming -39th International Colloquium, ICALP 2012, Warwick, UK, July 9-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Artur Czumaj, Kurt Mehlhorn, Andrew M. Pitts, and Roger Wattenhofer (Eds.), Vol. 7392. Springer, 227–238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hongfei Fu and Krishnendu Chatterjee. 2019. Termination of Nondeterministic Probabilistic Programs. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - 20th International Conference, VMCAI 2019, Cascais, Portugal, January 13-15, 2019, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Constantin Enea and Ruzica Piskac (Eds.), Vol. 11388. Springer, 468–490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Marco Gaboardi, Andreas Haeberlen, Justin Hsu, Arjun Narayan, and Benjamin C. Pierce. 2013. Linear dependent types for differential privacy. In The 40th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’13, Rome, Italy - January 23 - 25, 2013. 357–370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Moritz Hardt, Ben Recht, and Yoram Singer. 2016. Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016. 1225–1234. http://jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v48/hardt16.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mingzhang Huang, Hongfei Fu, and Krishnendu Chatterjee. 2018a. New Approaches for Almost-Sure Termination of Probabilistic Programs. In Programming Languages and Systems - 16th Asian Symposium, APLAS 2018, Wellington, New Zealand, December 2-6, 2018, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Sukyoung Ryu (Ed.), Vol. 11275. Springer, 181–201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Zixin Huang, Zhenbang Wang, and Sasa Misailovic. 2018b. PSense: Automatic Sensitivity Analysis for Probabilistic Programs. In Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis - 16th International Symposium, ATVA 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA, October 7-10, 2018, Proceedings. 387–403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Christoph Matheja, and Federico Olmedo. 2016. Weakest Precondition Reasoning for Expected Run-Times of Probabilistic Programs. In Programming Languages and Systems - 25th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2016, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8, 2016, Proceedings. 364–389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Dexter Kozen. 1985. A Probabilistic PDL. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 30, 2 (1985), 162–178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Orna Kupferman and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1997. Modular Model Checking. In Compositionality: The Significant Difference, International Symposium, COMPOS’97, Bad Malente, Germany, September 8-12, 1997. Revised Lectures (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Willem P. de Roever, Hans Langmaack, and Amir Pnueli (Eds.), Vol. 1536. Springer, 381–401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Annabelle McIver, Carroll Morgan, Benjamin Lucien Kaminski, and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2017. A new proof rule for almost-sure termination. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 2, POPL (2017), 33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S.P. Meyn and R.L. Tweedie. 1993. Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability. Springer-Verlag, London. available at: probability.ca/MT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Carroll Morgan, Annabelle McIver, and Karen Seidel. 1996. Probabilistic Predicate Transformers. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 18, 3 (1996), 325–353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yurii Nesterov. 2004. Introductory Lectures on Convex Optimization. Applied Optimization, Vol. 87. Springer-Verlag US. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Van Chan Ngo, Quentin Carbonneaux, and Jan Hoffmann. 2018. Bounded expectations: resource analysis for probabilistic programs. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018. 496–512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jason Reed and Benjamin C. Pierce. 2010. Distance makes the types grow stronger: a calculus for differential privacy. In Proceeding of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming, ICFP 2010, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, September 27-29, 2010. 157–168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Franck van Breugel and James Worrell. 2006. Approximating and computing behavioural distances in probabilistic transition systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 360, 1-3 (2006), 373–385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Peixin Wang, Hongfei Fu, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Yuxin Deng, and Ming Xu. 2019a. Proving Expected Sensitivity of Probabilistic Programs with Randomized Variable-Dependent Termination Time. CoRR abs/1902.04744 (2019). arXiv: 1902.04744 http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04744Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Peixin Wang, Hongfei Fu, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Xudong Qin, and Wenjun Shi. 2019b. Cost analysis of nondeterministic probabilistic programs. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22-26, 2019., Kathryn S. McKinley and Kathleen Fisher (Eds.). ACM, 204–220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. David Williams. 1991. Probability with Martingales. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Daniel Winograd-Cort, Andreas Haeberlen, Aaron Roth, and Benjamin C. Pierce. 2017. A framework for adaptive differential privacy. PACMPL 1, ICFP (2017), 10:1–10:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic programs with randomized variable-dependent termination time

        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!