Higher-Order Model Checking of Effect-Handling Programs with Answer-Type Modification
Article No.: 365, Pages 2662 - 2691
Abstract
Model checking is one of the successful program verification methodologies. Since the seminal work by Ong, the model checking of higher-order programs―called higher-order model checking, or HOMC for short―has gained attention. It is also crucial for making HOMC applicable to real-world software to address programs involving computational effects. Recently, Dal Lago and Ghyselen considered an extension of HOMC to algebraic effect handlers, which enable programming the semantics of effects. They showed a negative result for HOMC with algebraic effect handlers―it is undecidable. In this work, we explore a restriction on programs with algebraic effect handlers which ensures the decidability of HOMC while allowing implementations of various effects. We identify the crux of the undecidability as the use of an unbounded number of algebraic effect handlers being active at the same time. To prevent it, we introduce answer-type modification (ATM), which can bound the number of algebraic effect handlers that can be active at the same time. We prove that ATM can ensure the decidability of HOMC and show that it accommodates a wide range of effects. To evaluate our approach, we implemented an automated verifier EffCaml based on the presented techniques and confirmed that the program examples discussed in this paper can be automatically verified.
Supplemental Material
PDF File - Supplementary Material for "Higher-Order Model Checking of Effect-Handling Programs with Answer-Type Modification"
This is the supplementary material of the paper titled "Higher-Order Model Checking of Effect-Handling Programs with Answer-Type Modification" published at OOPSLA'24, including all the definitions, lemmas, theorems, and proofs mentioned in the paper.
- Download
- 368.00 KB
References
[1]
Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2008. Principles of model checking. MIT Press. isbn:978-0-262-02649-9
[2]
Aaron R. Bradley. 2011. SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation - 12th International Conference, VMCAI 2011, Austin, TX, USA, January 23-25, 2011. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6538), Ranjit Jhala and David A. Schmidt (Eds.). Springer, 70–87.
[3]
Christopher H. Broadbent and Naoki Kobayashi. 2013. Saturation-Based Model Checking of Higher-Order Recursion Schemes. In Computer Science Logic 2013 (CSL 2013), CSL 2013, September 2-5, 2013, Torino, Italy (LIPIcs, Vol. 23), Simona Ronchi Della Rocca (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 129–148.
[4]
Jerry R. Burch, Edmund M. Clarke, Kenneth L. McMillan, David L. Dill, and L. J. Hwang. 1990. Symbolic Model Checking: 10^20 States and Beyond. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS ’90), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, June 4-7, 1990. IEEE Computer Society, 428–439.
[5]
Edmund M. Clarke, Thomas A. Henzinger, Helmut Veith, and Roderick Bloem (Eds.). 2018. Handbook of Model Checking. Springer. isbn:978-3-319-10574-1
[6]
Youyou Cong and Kenichi Asai. 2022. Understanding Algebraic Effect Handlers via Delimited Control Operators. In Trends in Functional Programming - 23rd International Symposium, TFP 2022, Virtual Event, March 17-18, 2022, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13401), Wouter Swierstra and Nicolas Wu (Eds.). Springer, 59–79.
[7]
Youyou Cong, Chiaki Ishio, Kaho Honda, and Kenichi Asai. 2021. A Functional Abstraction of Typed Invocation Contexts. In 6th International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction, FSCD 2021, July 17-24, 2021, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Virtual Conference) (LIPIcs, Vol. 195), Naoki Kobayashi (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 12:1–12:18.
[8]
Ugo Dal Lago. 2024. Private communication.
[9]
Ugo Dal Lago and Alexis Ghyselen. 2024. On Model-Checking Higher-Order Effectful Programs. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 8, POPL (2024), 2610–2638.
[10]
Olivier Danvy and Andrzej Filinski. 1990. Abstracting Control. In LISP and Functional Programming. 151–160.
[11]
Paulo Emílio de Vilhena and François Pottier. 2021. A separation logic for effect handlers. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 5, POPL (2021), 1–28.
[12]
Yannick Forster, Ohad Kammar, Sam Lindley, and Matija Pretnar. 2017. On the expressive power of user-defined effects: effect handlers, monadic reflection, delimited control. PACMPL 1, ICFP (2017), 13:1–13:29.
[13]
Colin S. Gordon. 2020. Lifting Sequential Effects to Control Operators. In 34th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP 2020 (LIPIcs, Vol. 166), Robert Hirschfeld and Tobias Pape (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 23:1–23:30.
[14]
Matthew Hague, Andrzej S. Murawski, C.-H. Luke Ong, and Olivier Serre. 2008. Collapsible Pushdown Automata and Recursion Schemes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2008, 24-27 June 2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 452–461.
[15]
Chiaki Ishio and Kenichi Asai. 2022. Type System for Four Delimited Control Operators. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences, GPCE 2022, Auckland, New Zealand, December 6-7, 2022, Bernhard Scholz and Yukiyoshi Kameyama (Eds.). ACM, 45–58.
[16]
Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar. 2009. Software model checking. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 4 (2009), 21:1–21:54.
[17]
Yukiyoshi Kameyama and Takuo Yonezawa. 2008. Typed Dynamic Control Operators for Delimited Continuations. In Functional and Logic Programming, 9th International Symposium, FLOPS 2008. 239–254.
[18]
Ohad Kammar, Sam Lindley, and Nicolas Oury. 2013. Handlers in action. In ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2013. 145–158.
[19]
Fuga Kawamata, Hiroshi Unno, Taro Sekiyama, and Tachio Terauchi. 2024. Answer Refinement Modification: Refinement Type System for Algebraic Effects and Handlers. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 8, POPL (2024), 115–147.
[20]
Donnacha Oisín Kidney, Zhixuan Yang, and Nicolas Wu. 2024. Algebraic Effects Meet Hoare Logic in Cubical Agda. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 8, POPL (2024), 1663–1695.
[21]
Naoki Kobayashi. 2009. Types and higher-order recursion schemes for verification of higher-order programs. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, Savannah, GA, USA, January 21-23, 2009, Zhong Shao and Benjamin C. Pierce (Eds.). ACM, 416–428.
[22]
Naoki Kobayashi. 2013. Model Checking Higher-Order Programs. J. ACM 60, 3 (2013), 20:1–20:62.
[23]
Naoki Kobayashi. 2016. HorSat2: A Saturation-Based Model Checker for Higher-Order Recursion Schemes. Private communication. Available at https://github.com/hopv/horsat2.
[24]
Naoki Kobayashi, Ugo Dal Lago, and Charles Grellois. 2019. On the Termination Problem for Probabilistic Higher-Order Recursive Programs. In 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 24-27, 2019. IEEE, 1–14.
[25]
Naoki Kobayashi and Atsushi Igarashi. 2013. Model-Checking Higher-Order Programs with Recursive Types. In Programming Languages and Systems - 22nd European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2013, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24, 2013. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7792), Matthias Felleisen and Philippa Gardner (Eds.). Springer, 431–450.
[26]
Naoki Kobayashi, Étienne Lozes, and Florian Bruse. 2017. On the relationship between higher-order recursion schemes and higher-order fixpoint logic. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, Paris, France, January 18-20, 2017, Giuseppe Castagna and Andrew D. Gordon (Eds.). ACM, 246–259.
[27]
Naoki Kobayashi and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2009. A Type System Equivalent to the Modal Mu-Calculus Model Checking of Higher-Order Recursion Schemes. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2009, 11-14 August 2009, Los Angeles, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 179–188.
[28]
Naoki Kobayashi and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2009. A Type System Equivalent to the Modal Mu-Calculus Model Checking of Higher-Order Recursion Schemes. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2009. IEEE Computer Society, 179–188.
[29]
Naoki Kobayashi, Ryosuke Sato, and Hiroshi Unno. 2011. Predicate abstraction and CEGAR for higher-order model checking. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, USA, June 4-8, 2011, Mary W. Hall and David A. Padua (Eds.). ACM, 222–233.
[30]
Naoki Kobayashi, Naoshi Tabuchi, and Hiroshi Unno. 2010. Higher-order multi-parameter tree transducers and recursion schemes for program verification. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2010, Madrid, Spain, January 17-23, 2010, Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jens Palsberg (Eds.). ACM, 495–508.
[31]
Sam Lindley. 2014. Algebraic effects and effect handlers for idioms and arrows. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Generic programming, WGP 2014, Gothenburg, Sweden, August 31, 2014, José Pedro Magalh aes and Tiark Rompf (Eds.). ACM, 47–58.
[32]
Ziga Luksic and Matija Pretnar. 2020. Local algebraic effect theories. J. Funct. Program. 30 (2020), e13.
[33]
Cristina Matache and Sam Staton. 2019. A Sound and Complete Logic for Algebraic Effects. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures - 22nd International Conference, FOSSACS 2019, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11, 2019, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11425), Mikolaj Bojanczyk and Alex Simpson (Eds.). Springer, 382–399.
[34]
Marek Materzok and Dariusz Biernacki. 2011. Subtyping Delimited Continuations. In Proceeding of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2011, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty, Zhenjiang Hu, and Olivier Danvy (Eds.). ACM, 81–93.
[35]
Yuma Matsumoto, Naoki Kobayashi, and Hiroshi Unno. 2015. Automata-Based Abstraction for Automated Verification of Higher-Order Tree-Processing Programs. In Programming Languages and Systems - 13th Asian Symposium, APLAS 2015, Pohang, South Korea, November 30 - December 2, 2015, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9458), Xinyu Feng and Sungwoo Park (Eds.). Springer, 295–312.
[36]
C.-H. Luke Ong. 2006. On Model-Checking Trees Generated by Higher-Order Recursion Schemes. In 21th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2006), 12-15 August 2006, Seattle, WA, USA, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society, 81–90.
[37]
C.-H. Luke Ong and Steven J. Ramsay. 2011. Verifying higher-order functional programs with pattern-matching algebraic data types. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2011, Austin, TX, USA, January 26-28, 2011, Thomas Ball and Mooly Sagiv (Eds.). ACM, 587–598.
[38]
Gordon D. Plotkin. 1975. Call-by-Name, Call-by-Value and the lambda-Calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1, 2 (1975), 125–159.
[39]
Gordon D. Plotkin. 1977. LCF Considered as a Programming Language. Theor. Comput. Sci. 5, 3 (1977), 223–255.
[40]
Gordon D. Plotkin and John Power. 2003. Algebraic Operations and Generic Effects. Applied Categorical Structures 11, 1 (2003), 69–94.
[41]
Gordon D. Plotkin and Matija Pretnar. 2008. A Logic for Algebraic Effects. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2008, 24-27 June 2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 118–129.
[42]
Gordon D. Plotkin and Matija Pretnar. 2009. Handlers of Algebraic Effects. In Programming Languages and Systems, 18th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2009, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2009, Proceedings. 80–94.
[43]
Gordon D. Plotkin and Matija Pretnar. 2013. Handling Algebraic Effects. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9, 4 (2013).
[44]
Amir Pnueli. 1977. The Temporal Logic of Programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977. IEEE Computer Society, 46–57.
[45]
Matija Pretnar. 2015. An Introduction to Algebraic Effects and Handlers. Invited tutorial paper. In The 31st Conference on the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, MFPS 2015, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 22-25, 2015 (Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 319), Dan R. Ghica (Ed.). Elsevier, 19–35.
[46]
Steven J. Ramsay, Robin P. Neatherway, and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2014. A type-directed abstraction refinement approach to higher-order model checking. In The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’14, San Diego, CA, USA, January 20-21, 2014, Suresh Jagannathan and Peter Sewell (Eds.). ACM, 61–72.
[47]
John C. Reynolds. 1972. Definitional Interpreters for Higher-Order Programming Languages. In Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference - Volume 2 (ACM ’72). 717–740.
[48]
Sylvain Salvati and Igor Walukiewicz. 2014. Krivine machines and higher-order schemes. Inf. Comput. 239 (2014), 340–355.
[49]
Ryosuke Sato, Hiroshi Unno, and Naoki Kobayashi. 2013. Towards a scalable software model checker for higher-order programs. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2013 Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, PEPM 2013, Elvira Albert and Shin-Cheng Mu (Eds.). ACM, 53–62.
[50]
Philipp Schuster, Jonathan Immanuel Brachthäuser, and Klaus Ostermann. 2020. Compiling effect handlers in capability-passing style. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 4, ICFP (2020), 93:1–93:28.
[51]
Taro Sekiyama and Hiroshi Unno. 2023. Temporal Verification with Answer-Effect Modification: Dependent Temporal Type-and-Effect System with Delimited Continuations. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 7, POPL, Article 71 (2023), 32 pages.
[52]
Yahui Song, Darius Foo, and Wei-Ngan Chin. 2022. Automated Temporal Verification for Algebraic Effects. In Programming Languages and Systems - 20th Asian Symposium, APLAS 2022 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13658), Ilya Sergey (Ed.). Springer, 88–109.
[53]
Nikhil Swamy, Joel Weinberger, Cole Schlesinger, Juan Chen, and Benjamin Livshits. 2013. Verifying higher-order programs with the dijkstra monad. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’13, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-19, 2013, Hans-Juergen Boehm and Cormac Flanagan (Eds.). ACM, 387–398.
[54]
Takeshi Tsukada and Naoki Kobayashi. 2010. Untyped Recursion Schemes and Infinite Intersection Types. In Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures, 13th International Conference, FOSSACS 2010, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2010, Paphos, Cyprus, March 20-28, 2010. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6014), C.-H. Luke Ong (Ed.). Springer, 343–357.
[55]
Hiroshi Unno, Naoshi Tabuchi, and Naoki Kobayashi. 2010. Verification of Tree-Processing Programs via Higher-Order Model Checking. In Programming Languages and Systems - 8th Asian Symposium, APLAS 2010, Shanghai, China, November 28 - December 1, 2010. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6461), Kazunori Ueda (Ed.). Springer, 312–327.
Index Terms
- Higher-Order Model Checking of Effect-Handling Programs with Answer-Type Modification
Recommendations
On Model-Checking Higher-Order Effectful Programs
Model-checking is one of the most powerful techniques for verifying systems and programs, which since the pioneering results by Knapik et al., Ong, and Kobayashi, is known to be applicable to functional programs with higher-order types against properties ...
Types and higher-order recursion schemes for verification of higher-order programs
POPL '09We propose a new verification method for temporal properties of higher-order functional programs, which takes advantage of Ong's recent result on the decidability of the model-checking problem for higher-order recursion schemes (HORS's). A program is ...
Types and higher-order recursion schemes for verification of higher-order programs
POPL '09: Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languagesWe propose a new verification method for temporal properties of higher-order functional programs, which takes advantage of Ong's recent result on the decidability of the model-checking problem for higher-order recursion schemes (HORS's). A program is ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2024
2691 pages
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 08 October 2024
Published in PACMPL Volume 8, Issue OOPSLA2
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- JSPS KAKENHI
- JST CREST
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 151Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)151
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)55
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in