fast polyhedraabstract domainelina.ethz.ch/slides/popl2017-fast-polyhedra.pdf · polyhedra domain...

Gagandeep Singh Markus Püschel Martin Vechev

Department of Computer Science

ETH Zurich

Fast Polyhedra Abstract Domain

Polyhedra Domain AnalysisAutomatic Discovery of Linear Restraints Among Variables of a Program, POPL’78

Introduced by Patrick Cousot and Nicolas Halbwachs

Represents linear constraints between program variables

Patrick Cousot Nicolas Halbwachs

Polyhedra Domain AnalysisAutomatic Discovery of Linear Restraints Among Variables of a Program, POPL’78

Introduced by Patrick Cousot and Nicolas Halbwachs

Represents linear constraints between program variables

y ≤ 3

-x ≤

Patrick Cousot Nicolas Halbwachs

Polyhedra Domain Analysis

if(*){

y:=2x-1;

y:=2x-2;

assert(y<=2x);

if(*){

y:=2x-1;

y:=2x-2;

Abstract

Domain

Can Prove the

Assertion?

Interval ❌

Pentagon ❌

Zones ❌

Octagon ❌

Polyhedra ✅assert(y<=2x);

if(*){

y:=2x-1;

y:=2x-2;

Abstract

Domain

Can Prove the

Assertion?

Interval ❌

Pentagon ❌

Zones ❌

Octagon ❌

Polyhedra ✅assert(y<=2x);

Polyhedra analysis: time and space exponential in number of variables

This work: contributions

Online decomposition: reduction in space and time without losing precision

Constant factor improvements via reduced operation count and cache optimizations

elina.ethz.ch

Complete end-to-end

implementation

elina.ethz.ch

Complete end-to-end

implementation

Driver NewPolka PPL ELINA

500 var

39K LOC

(> 12 GB)

0.9 GB

650 var

25K LOC

(> 4 hr)

0.4 GB

Double Representation of Polyhedron

x2 = 2

𝒞 = {-x2 ≤ -2, x2 ≤ 2x1}

m: number of constraints

Constraints(⊔) easy

with the Generators

x2 = 2

𝒞 = {-x2 ≤ -2, x2 ≤ 2x1}

m: number of constraints

Vertices 𝒱 = {(1,2)},

Rays ℛ = {(1,2), (1,0)},

Lines 𝒵 = ∅g: number of generators

(1,2) (1,0)

Generators (⊔) easy

with the GeneratorsConstraints(⊔) easy

with the Generators

Asymptotic Time Complexity of Polyhedra

Operator Constraints Generators Both

Join (⊔) exp(n,m) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(𝑛𝑔)

Meet (⊓) Ο(𝑛𝑚) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛𝑚)

Inclusion (⊑) exp(n,m) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛𝑔𝑚)

Assignment Ο(𝑛𝑚2) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(𝑛𝑔)

Conditional Ο(𝑛) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛)

Asymptotic Time Complexity of Polyhedra

Operator Constraints Generators Both

Join (⊔) exp(n,m) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(𝑛𝑔)

Meet (⊓) Ο(𝑛𝑚) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛𝑚)

Inclusion (⊑) exp(n,m) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛𝑔𝑚)

Assignment Ο(𝑛𝑚2) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(𝑛𝑔)

Conditional Ο(𝑛) exp(n,g) Ο(𝑛)

Constraints Generators

exp(n,m)

exp(n,g)

Key Idea: Online Decomposition

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Polyhedron

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Polyhedron {𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Set of factors

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Set of factors

Partition (𝜋) =

set of blocks

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

working on smaller Polyhedra enables reduction in space and time

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Set of factors

Partition (𝜋) =

set of blocks

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

Permissible Partitions

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

Polyhedron

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

PolyhedronBest (finest)

partition (𝜋)

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

partition (𝜋)

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓, 𝒙𝟔}

Permissible

partition (𝜋)

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

partition (𝜋)

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓, 𝒙𝟔}

Permissible

partition (𝜋)

Invalid

partition

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑, 𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

Definition: A partition 𝜋 is permissible for Polyhedron P, if there are no two variables 𝒙𝒊 and 𝒙𝒋 in different blocks of 𝜋 related by a constraint in P

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

partition (𝜋)

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓, 𝒙𝟔}

Permissible

partition (𝜋)

Invalid

partition

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑, 𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

Partition of Variable Set: Summary

The set of all partitions of variable set 𝒳 form a lattice ordered by “finer than” (<) relation

The best (finest) partition 𝜋𝑃 for Polyhedron P is unique

Any 𝜋, s.t., 𝜋𝑃 < 𝜋, is permissible

An unconstrained variable 𝑥𝑖 yields a singleton set {𝑥𝑖} in the partition

Partition of Variable Set: Summary

The set of all partitions of variable set 𝒳 form a lattice ordered by “finer than” (<) relation

The best (finest) partition 𝜋𝑃 for Polyhedron P is unique

Any 𝜋, s.t., 𝜋𝑃 < 𝜋, is permissible

An unconstrained variable 𝑥𝑖 yields a singleton set {𝑥𝑖} in the partition

Challenge: maintain permissible partitions for > 30 operators

Operator: Conditional

Definition: Let 𝜋 be a partition and ℬ be a block, then 𝜋 ↑ ℬ is the finest partition 𝜋’ such that 𝜋 ⊑ 𝜋’ and ℬ is a subset of an element of 𝜋’

Theorem (finest partition after conditional):

If O ≠⊥ and let ℬ be block containing all variables appearing in the conditional,then 𝜋𝑂 = 𝜋𝑃 ↑ ℬ

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

if( 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟒)

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

O 𝜋𝑂{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟒}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐} {𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑,

𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}if( 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟒)

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

O 𝜋𝑂{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓,

𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟒}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐} {𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑,

𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}if( 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟒)

𝓑 = {𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟒}

Operator: Assignment

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

𝒙𝟐∶= 𝟐𝒙𝟒

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟒,

𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟑,

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐} {𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

𝒙𝟐∶= 𝟐𝒙𝟒{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟐= 𝟐𝒙𝟒}

{𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

Theorem (finest partition after assignment):

Let ℬ be block containing all variables appearing for assignment 𝒙𝒊 ≔ 𝒆 , and let 𝜋𝒊 = {𝒳 ∖{𝒙𝒊}, {𝒙𝒊}}, then 𝜋𝑂 = (𝜋𝑃 ⊓ 𝜋𝒊) ↑ ℬ

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟒,

𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟑,

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐} {𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

𝒙𝟐∶= 𝟐𝒙𝟒{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟐= 𝟐𝒙𝟒}

{𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

Theorem (finest partition after assignment):

Let ℬ be block containing all variables appearing for assignment 𝒙𝒊 ≔ 𝒆 , and let 𝜋𝒊 = {𝒳 ∖{𝒙𝒊}, {𝒙𝒊}}, then 𝜋𝑂 = (𝜋𝑃 ⊓ 𝜋𝒊) ↑ ℬ

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐𝒙𝟐,

𝒙𝟐 = 𝟐,𝒙𝟏 + 𝒙𝟐 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟓}

{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏}

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}

{𝒙𝟔}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟒,

𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟑,

{𝒙𝟔 = 𝟐} {𝒙𝟔}

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

𝒙𝟐∶= 𝟐𝒙𝟒{𝒙𝟒 - 𝒙𝟓 ≤ 𝟑,

𝒙𝟓 = 𝟏,

𝒙𝟐= 𝟐𝒙𝟒}

{𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟒, 𝒙𝟓}𝓑 = {𝒙𝟐, 𝒙𝟒}

Lattice Operators

Theorem (finest partition for ⊑):

If 𝑃 ⊑ 𝑄 and 𝑃 ≠⊥, then 𝜋𝑄 ⊑ 𝜋𝑃

Theorem: (finest partition after ⊓):

If 𝑃 ⊓ 𝑄 ≠⊥ , then 𝜋𝑂 = 𝜋𝑃 ⊔ 𝜋𝑄

For join (⊔), no general relationship exists between 𝜋𝑂, 𝜋𝑃 and 𝜋𝑄

Operator: Join (⊔)

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟎}

Q 𝜋𝑄

{𝒙𝟏}

{𝒙𝟑}

⊔ ∅ {𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟎}

Q 𝜋𝑄

{𝒙𝟏}

{𝒙𝟑}

⊔ ∅ {𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟐,

−𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟏}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟎}

Q 𝜋𝑄

{𝒙𝟏}

{𝒙𝟑}

⊔ ∅ {𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟐,

−𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟏}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟐}

𝜋𝑃 ⊔ 𝜋𝑄 = 𝜋𝑃 ≠ 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟎}

Q 𝜋𝑄

{𝒙𝟏}

{𝒙𝟑}

⊔ ∅ {𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟐,

−𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟏}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟐}

𝜋𝑃 ⊓ 𝜋𝑄 = 𝜋𝑄 ≠ 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏 − 𝒙𝟐 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟎}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟏}

P 𝜋𝑃

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟏 ≤ 𝟐}

{𝒙𝟑 = 𝟎}

Q 𝜋𝑄

{𝒙𝟏}

{𝒙𝟑}

⊔ ∅ {𝒙𝟐}

{𝒙𝟏 + 𝟐𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟐,

−𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟎,

𝒙𝟑 ≤ 𝟏}

O 𝜋𝑂

{𝒙𝟏, 𝒙𝟑}

{𝒙𝟐}

𝜋𝑃 ⊓ 𝜋𝑄 = 𝜋𝑄 ≠ 𝜋𝑂

For Join, 𝜋𝑂 depends on both P and Q

Theorem: Let P and Q be two Polyhedra with the same permissiblepartition 𝜋 = {𝒳1, 𝒳2, . . . , 𝒳𝑟} and let 𝜋 be a permissible partition for the join, that is, 𝜋𝑃⊔𝑄 ⊑ 𝜋. If for any block 𝒳𝑘 ∈ 𝜋,𝑃𝑘 = 𝑄𝑘 , then 𝒳𝑘 ∈ 𝜋

x1=2x1

x2=-2x1+10

x1=2x1

x2=-2x1+10

Operators with Permissible Partitions

Theorem (permissible partition after join):

Let 𝜋 = 𝜋𝑃 ⊔ 𝜋𝑄 and 𝒰 = {𝒳𝑘 | 𝑃𝑘 = 𝑄𝑘 , 𝒳𝑘 ∈ 𝜋}.

Then 𝜋𝑃⊔𝑄 = 𝒰 ∪ ⨃𝒯∈𝜋 ∖𝒰𝒯 is permissible for 𝑃 ⊔ 𝑄

Theorem (permissible partition after meet):

𝜋𝑃 ⊔ 𝜋𝑄 is permissible for 𝑃 ⊓ 𝑄

Theorem (permissible partition after conditional):

If output O ≠⊥, then, 𝜋𝑃 ↑ ℬ is permissible for conditional

Theorem (permissible partition after assignment):

𝜋𝑃 ↑ ℬ is permissible for the output O of assignment

Asymptotic Complexity of Operators with Permissible Partitions

r: number

of blocks

Operator Before

(using both)

Our work

(using decomposition)

Join (⊔) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(∑𝑖=1𝑟 𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑖 + 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥)

Meet (⊓) Ο(𝑛𝑚) Ο(∑𝑖=1𝑟 𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖)

Inclusion (⊑) Ο(𝑛𝑔𝑚) Ο(∑𝑖=1𝑟 𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑖)

Assignment Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥)

Conditional Ο(𝑛) Ο(𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥)

Conversion exp(n,g) exp(𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥)

Experimental Evaluation

We compared performance of ELINA against NewPolka and PPL

Using the Seahorn verification framework [CAV’15]• written in C, analyzes llvm-bitcode• produces Polyhedra invariants

> 1500 benchmarks from the software verification competition

Time limit: 4 hours

Memory limit: 12 GB

Experimental Evaluation

Evaluation

𝑛𝐸𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐴 < 𝑛𝑁𝑒𝑤𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑘𝑎 , large speedup as conversion is exponential in n

Related Work

• Variable Packing • Blanchet et al. [PLDI’03]

• decomposition based on syntactic criteria

• loses precision

• Matrix based decomposition• Halbwachs et al. [FMSD’06]

• does not work with generators

• decomposition too coarse for join

Conclusion

Operator Both Online

decomposition

Join (⊔) Ο(𝑛𝑔) Ο(∑𝑖=1𝑟 𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑖

+ 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑥)

Conclusion

decomposition

http://elina.ethz.ch

Conclusion

decomposition

http://elina.ethz.ch

Driver NewPolka PPL ELINA

500 var

39K LOC

(> 12 GB)

0.9 GB

650 var

25K LOC

(> 4 hr)

0.4 GB

fast polyhedraabstract domainelina.ethz.ch/slides/popl2017-fast-polyhedra.pdf · polyhedra domain...

Documents

geometric origami modular polyhedra

paper models of polyhedra - geometria.cl · paper models of...

polyhedra tagua beads

polyhedra - february...

regular polyhedra through time

abstractions from proofs presented in popl’04

are your polyhedra the same as my polyhedra?

vmcai & popl 2010

modular polyhedra

reconstruction of orthogonal polyhedra

fast numerical program analysis with reinforcement...

accurate and fast proximity queries between polyhedra...

are your polyhedra the same as my...

programming with “big code” - github pages ·...

polyhedra and prisms

polygons, polyhedra, patterns & beyond

platonic & archimedean polyhedraplatonic & archimedean ....

polyhedra: representation and recognttion...the obtained...

fast polyhedra abstract domainanalysis with the polyhedra...

polyhedra: plato, archimedes, euler