A Logic for Locally Complete Abstract Interpretations
Roberto Bruni, Roberto Giacobazzi, Roberta Gori, Francesco Ranzato
Abstract
We introduce the notion of local completeness in abstract interpretation and define a logic for proving both the correctness and incorrectness of some program specification. Abstract interpretation is extensively used to design sound-by-construction program analyses that over-approximate program behaviours. Completeness of an abstract interpretation A for all possible programs and inputs would be an ideal situation for verifying correctness specifications, because the analysis can be done compositionally and no false alert will arise. Our first result shows that the class of programs whose abstract analysis on A is complete for all inputs has a severely limited expressiveness. A novel notion of local completeness weakens the above requirements by considering only some specific, rather than all, program inputs and thus finds wider applicability. In fact, our main contribution is the design of a proof system, parameterized by an abstraction A, that, for the first time, combines over- and under-approximations of program behaviours. Thanks to local completeness, in a provable triple ⊢A [P ] c [Q], the assertion Q is an under-approximation of the strongest post-condition postc such that the abstractions in A of Q and postc coincide. This means that Q is never too coarse, namely, under mild assumptions, the abstract interpretation of c does not yield false alerts for the input P iff Q has no alert. Thus, ⊢ A [P ] c [Q] not only ensures that all the alerts raised in Q are true ones, but also that if Q does not raise alerts then c is correct.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4d98de19-1a5b-4426-9d09-cd7a425bff48Cited by top-tier papers15
- Outcome Logic: A Unifying Foundation for Correctness and Incorrectness ReasoningNoam Zilberstein, Derek Dreyer, Alexandra SilvaOOPSLA 2023 · 39 citations
- Hyper Hoare Logic: (Dis-)Proving Program HyperpropertiesThibault Dardinier, Peter MüllerPLDI 2024 · 28 citations
- Outcome Separation Logic: Local Reasoning for Correctness and Incorrectness with Computational EffectsNoam Zilberstein, Angelina Saliling, Alexandra SilvaOOPSLA 2024 · 16 citations
- Abstract interpretation repairRoberto Bruni, Roberto Giacobazzi, Roberta Gori, Francesco RanzatoPLDI 2022 · 15 citations
- Quantitative strongest post: a calculus for reasoning about the flow of quantitative informationLinpeng Zhang, Benjamin Lucien KaminskiOOPSLA 2022 · 14 citations
Builds on2
- Local Reasoning About the Presence of Bugs: Incorrectness Separation LogicAzalea Raad, Josh Berdine, Hoang-Hai Dang, Derek Dreyer et al.CAV 2020 · 70 citations
- Abstract extensionality: on the properties of incomplete abstract interpretationsRoberto Bruni, Roberto Giacobazzi, Roberta Gori, Isabel Garcia-Contreras et al.POPL 2020 · 27 citations
Related papers
- Abstract Interpretation with Confidence: Quantifying the Precision of Dataflow Analysis with ProbabilitiesYuanfeng Shi, Ziyue Jin, Xin ZhangPLDI 2026
- A Logic for the Imprecision of Abstract InterpretationsMarco Campion, Mila Dalla Preda, Roberto Giacobazzi, Caterina UrbanPOPL 2026 · 2 citations
- The Best of Abstract InterpretationsRoberto Giacobazzi, Francesco RanzatoPOPL 2025 · 1 citation
- Partial (In)Completeness in abstract interpretation: limiting the imprecision in program analysisMarco Campion, Mila Dalla Preda, Roberto GiacobazziPOPL 2022 · 21 citations
- Systematic Design of Separation LogicsRoberto Bruni, Lorenzo Gazzella, Roberta GoriOOPSLA 2026
