Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Equivalence and Similarity Refutation for Probabilistic Programs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.03430 v1 pith:ZQTZ6VRX submitted 2024-04-04 cs.PL cs.FL

classification cs.PLcs.FL
keywords equivalencesimilarityprogramsmethodprobabilisticcorrectnessdistributionsexpectation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider the problems of statically refuting equivalence and similarity of output distributions defined by a pair of probabilistic programs. Equivalence and similarity are two fundamental relational properties of probabilistic programs that are essential for their correctness both in implementation and in compilation. In this work, we present a new method for static equivalence and similarity refutation. Our method refutes equivalence and similarity by computing a function over program outputs whose expected value with respect to the output distributions of two programs is different. The function is computed simultaneously with an upper expectation supermartingale and a lower expectation submartingale for the two programs, which we show to together provide a formal certificate for refuting equivalence and similarity. To the best of our knowledge, our method is the first approach to relational program analysis to offer the combination of the following desirable features: (1) it is fully automated, (2) it is applicable to infinite-state probabilistic programs, and (3) it provides formal guarantees on the correctness of its results. We implement a prototype of our method and our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method to refute equivalence and similarity for a number of examples collected from the literature.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools