Incorrectness Logic for Graph Programs

Poskitt, Christopher M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78946-6_5

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We begin by defining 'Shift', which can be used to transform a ME-constraint c into a ME-condition over the left-hand side of a rule L by considering all the ways that a 'match' can overlap with c. Our definition is adapted from earlier shifting constructions in [7,12,24,25] to handle the presence of list variables. Intuitively, this is handled via a disjunction over all possible substitutions of a variable in c for list expressions or variables in L, i.e.…”

Section: Constructing Weakest Postconditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[21,22,23]). This is a revised and extended version of the ICGT'21 paper, "Incorrectness Logic for Graph Programs" [24], and contains the following new content:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• We target GP 2 [20], a full-fledged graph programming language, as opposed to the rudimentary language explored in [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Monadic second-order incorrectness logic for GP 2

Poskitt

Plump²

2023

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Constructing Weakest Postconditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[21,22,23]). This is a revised and extended version of the ICGT'21 paper, "Incorrectness Logic for Graph Programs" [24], and contains the following new content:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monadic second-order incorrectness logic for GP 2

Poskitt

Plump²

2023

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Incorrectness logic IL has been introduced by O'Hearn [24] as a natural under-approximating counterpart of the pivotal Hoare correctness logic [14], and quickly attracted a lot of research interest [19,25,26,27,31]. Incorrectness logic distinguishes two postconditions corresponding to normal and erroneous/abnormal program termination.…”

Section: Incorrectness Logic In Katmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Completeness Logic on Kleene Algebra with Tests

Milanese¹,

Ranzato²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local Completeness Logic (LCL) has been put forward as a program logic for proving both the correctness and incorrectness of program specifications. LCL is an abstract logic, parameterized by an abstract domain that allows combining over-and under-approximations of program behaviors. It turns out that LCL instantiated to the trivial singleton abstraction boils down to O'Hearn incorrectness logic, which allows us to prove the presence of program bugs. It has been recently proved that suitable extensions of Kleene algebra with tests (KAT) allow representing both O'Hearn incorrectness and Hoare correctness program logics within the same equational framework. In this work, we generalize this result by showing how KATs extended either with a modal diamond operator or with a top element are able to represent the local completeness logic LCL. This is achieved by studying how these extended KATs can be endowed with an abstract domain so as to define the validity of correctness/incorrectness LCL triples and to show that the LCL proof system is logically sound and, under some hypotheses, complete.

show abstract

Local Completeness Logic on Kleene Algebra with Tests

Milanese¹,

Ranzato²

2022

Static Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incorrectness Logic for Graph Programs

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Monadic second-order incorrectness logic for GP 2

Monadic second-order incorrectness logic for GP 2

Local Completeness Logic on Kleene Algebra with Tests

Local Completeness Logic on Kleene Algebra with Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About