Susmit Jha (Strategic CAD Labs, Intel) |
Sanjit A. Seshia (EECS, UC Berkeley) |

Counterexample-guided inductive synthesis CEGIS is used to synthesize programs from a candidate space of programs. The technique is guaranteed to terminate and synthesize the correct program if the space of candidate programs is finite. But the technique may or may not terminate with the correct program if the candidate space of programs is infinite. In this paper, we perform a theoretical analysis of counterexample-guided inductive synthesis technique. We investigate whether the set of candidate spaces for which the correct program can be synthesized using CEGIS depends on the counterexamples used in inductive synthesis, that is, whether there are good mistakes which would increase the synthesis power. We investigate whether the use of minimal counterexamples instead of arbitrary counterexamples expands the set of candidate spaces of programs for which inductive synthesis can successfully synthesize a correct program. We consider two kinds of counterexamples: minimal counterexamples and history bounded counterexamples. The history bounded counterexample used in any iteration of CEGIS is bounded by the examples used in previous iterations of inductive synthesis. We examine the relative change in power of inductive synthesis in both cases. We show that the synthesis technique using minimal counterexamples MinCEGIS has the same synthesis power as CEGIS but the synthesis technique using history bounded counterexamples HCEGIS has different power than that of CEGIS, but none dominates the other. |

Published: 18th July 2014.

ArXived at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.157.10 | bibtex | |

Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org |

For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org |