Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Are My Invariants Valid? A Learning Approach (1903.06089v2)

Published 14 Mar 2019 in cs.SE

Abstract: Ensuring that a program operates correctly is a difficult task in large, complex systems. Enshrining invariants -- desired properties of correct execution -- in code or comments can support maintainability and help sustain correctness. Tools that can automatically infer and recommend invariants can thus be very beneficial. However, current invariant-suggesting tools, such as Daikon, suffer from high rates of false positives, in part because they only leverage traced program values from available test cases, rather than directly exploiting knowledge of the source code per se. We propose a machine-learning approach to judging the validity of invariants, specifically of method pre- and post-conditions, based directly on a method's source code. We introduce a new, scalable approach to creating labeled invariants: using programs with large test-suites, we generate Daikon invariants using traces from subsets of these test-suites, and then label these as valid/invalid by cross-validating them with held-out tests. This process induces a large set of labels that provide a form of noisy supervision, which is then used to train a deep neural model, based on gated graph neural networks. Our model learns to map the lexical, syntactic, and semantic structure of a given method's body into a probability that a candidate pre- or post-condition on that method's body is correct and is able to accurately label invariants based on the noisy signal, even in cross-project settings. Most importantly, it performs well on a hand-curated dataset of invariants.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Vincent J. Hellendoorn (16 papers)
  2. Premkumar T. Devanbu (4 papers)
  3. Oleksandr Polozov (17 papers)
  4. Mark Marron (10 papers)
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.