Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Optimizing Maude Programs via Program Specialization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Analysis, Verification and Transformation for Declarative Programming and Intelligent Systems

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13160))

  • 260 Accesses

Abstract

We develop an automated specialization framework for rewrite theories that model concurrent systems. A rewrite theory \(\mathscr {R}=(\Sigma ,E\uplus B,R)\) consists of two main components: an order-sorted equational theory \(\mathscr {E}=(\Sigma ,E\uplus B)\) that defines the system states as terms of an algebraic data type and a term rewriting system R that models the concurrent evolution of the system as state transitions. Our main idea is to partially evaluate the underlying equational theory \(\mathscr {E}\) to the specific calls required by the rewrite rules of R in order to make the system computations more efficient. The specialization transformation relies on folding variant narrowing, which is the symbolic operational engine of Maude’s equational theories. We provide three instances of our specialization scheme that support distinct classes of theories that are relevant for many applications. The effectiveness of our method is finally demonstrated in some specialization examples.

This work has been partially supported by the EC H2020-EU grant agreement No. 952215 (TAILOR), grants RTI2018-094403-B-C32 and PID2021-122830OB-C42 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”, by Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO/2019/098, and by the Department Strategic Plan (PSD) of the University of Udine—Interdepartmental Project on Artificial Intelligence (2021-25).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, assuming a commutative binary operator \(*\), the term \(s(0)*0\) matches within the term \(X*s(Y)\) modulo the commutativity of symbol \(*\) with matching substitution \(\{X/0,Y/0\}\).

  2. 2.

    A variant [22] of a term t in the theory \(\mathcal{E}\) is the canonical (i.e., irreducible) form of \(t \sigma \) in \(\mathcal{E}\) for a given substitution \(\sigma \); in symbols, it is represented as the pair \((t\sigma \!\!\downarrow _{\vec {E},B},\sigma )\).

  3. 3.

    In [40], natural numbers are encoded by using two constants 0 and 1 and an ACU operator + so that a natural number is either the constant 0 or a finite sequence 1 + 1 ... + 1.

  4. 4.

    Besides the topmost assumption for \(\mathscr {R}\), we also consider the classical executability restriction that the set R of rules is coherent with E modulo B (intuitively, this ensures that a rewrite step with R can always be postponed in favor of deterministically rewriting with E modulo B).

  5. 5.

    In an order-sorted setting, multiple equations are actually used to cover any possible sort in \(\mathscr {R}\).

  6. 6.

    For example, by using \(\epsilon \), the term \(s(0)*0\,=\!?\!=\,U*s(V)\) FV-narrows to tt (modulo commutativity of \(*\)), and the computed narrowing substitution does coincide with the unifier modulo commutativity of the two argument terms, i.e., \(\{U\mapsto 0,V\mapsto 0\}\).

  7. 7.

    For simplicity, we assume that Q is normalized w.r.t. the equational theory \(\mathscr {E}\). If this were not the case, for each \(t\in Q\) that is not in canonical form such that \(t\!\downarrow _{\vec {E},B}=C(\overline{t_{i}})\), where C() is the (possibly empty) constructor context of \(t\!\downarrow _{\vec {E},B}\) and \(\overline{t_{i}}\) are the maximal calls in \(t\!\downarrow _{\vec {E},B}\), we would replace t in Q with the normalized terms \(\overline{t_{i}}\) and add a suitable “bridge” equation \(t =C(\overline{t_{i}})\) to the resulting specialization.

  8. 8.

    The case when \(\mathscr {E}\) satisfies SC but not the FVP is not considered because there is no technique to compute the finite set of most general constructor variants in this case, which is a matter for future research.

References

  1. Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Vidal, G.: Indy User’s Manual. Technical report DSIC-II/12/98, Department of Computer Systems and Computation, Universitat Politècnica de València (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Harms, M., Vidal, G.: A partial evaluation framework for curry programs. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1705, pp. 376–395. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48242-3_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Baggi, M., Falaschi, F.: A fold/unfold transformation framework for rewrite theories extended to CCT. In: Gallagher, J., Voigtländer, J. (eds.) ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation (PEPM 2010), pp. 43–52. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1706356.1706367

  4. Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Frechina, F., Sapiña, J.: Assertion-based analysis via slicing with ABETS (system description). Theory Pract. Logic Program. 16(5–6), 515–532 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Frechina, F., Sapiña, J.: Debugging Maude programs via runtime assertion checking and trace slicing. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 85, 707–736 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Romero, D.: A rewriting logic approach to the formal specification and verification of web applications. Sci. Comput. Program. 81, 79–107 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alpuente, M., Cuenca-Ortega, A., Escobar, S., Meseguer, J.: A partial evaluation framework for order-sorted equational programs modulo axioms. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 110, 1–36 (2020)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Alpuente, M., Cuenca-Ortega, A., Escobar, S., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted homeomorphic embedding modulo combinations of associativity and/or commutativity axioms. Fund. Inform. 177(3–4), 297–329 (2020)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Alpuente, M., Cuenca-Ortega, A., Escobar, S., Sapiña, J.: Inspecting Maude variants with GLINTS. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 17(5–6), 689–707 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Alpuente, M., Escobar, S., Espert, J., Meseguer, J.: A modular order-sorted equational generalization algorithm. Inf. Comput. 235, 98–136 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Alpuente, M., Escobar, S., Iborra, J.: Termination of narrowing revisited. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 410(46), 4608–4625 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Julián, P., Vidal, G.: Specialization of lazy functional logic programs. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM 1997), pp. 151–162. Association for Computing Machinery (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Moreno, G., Vidal, G.: Safe folding/unfolding with conditional narrowing. In: Hanus, M., Heering, J., Meinke, K. (eds.) ALP/HOA -1997. LNCS, vol. 1298, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026999

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Vidal, G.: A unifying view of functional and logic program specialization. ACM Comput. Surv. 30(3es), 9es (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Vidal, G.: Partial evaluation of functional logic programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 20(4), 768–844 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alpuente, M., Lucas, S., Hanus, M., Vidal, G.: Specialization of functional logic programs based on needed narrowing. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 5(3), 273–303 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Bae, K., Escobar, S., Meseguer, J.: Abstract logical model checking of infinite-state systems using narrowing. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA 2013). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 21, pp. 81–96. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Baelde, D., Delaune, S., Gazeau, I., Kremer, S.: Symbolic verification of privacy-type properties for security protocols with XOR. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Computer Security Foundations (CSF 2017), pp. 234–248. IEEE Computer Society Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bouchard, C., Gero, K.A., Lynch, C., Narendran, P.: On forward closure and the finite variant property. In: Fontaine, P., Ringeissen, C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) FroCoS 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8152, pp. 327–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40885-4_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Burstall, R.M., Darlington, J.: A transformation system for developing recursive programs. J. ACM 24(1), 44–67 (1977)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Clavel, M., et al.: Maude Manual (Version 3.0). Technical report, SRI International Computer Science Laboratory (2020). http://maude.cs.uiuc.edu

  22. Comon-Lundh, H., Delaune, S.: The finite variant property: how to get rid of some algebraic properties. In: Giesl, J. (ed.) RTA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3467, pp. 294–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32033-3_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Danvy, O., Glück, R., Thiemann, P.: Partial Evaluation, International Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61580-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Durán, F., et al.: Programming and symbolic computation in Maude. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 110, 100497 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Durán, F., Eker, S., Escobar, S., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: Associative unification and symbolic reasoning modulo associativity in Maude. In: Rusu, V. (ed.) WRLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11152, pp. 98–114. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99840-4_6

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Durán, F., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: MTT: the Maude termination tool (system description). In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 313–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Durán, F., Meseguer, J., Rocha, C.: Ground confluence of order-sorted conditional specifications modulo axioms. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 111, 100513 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J.: Maude-NPA: cryptographic protocol analysis modulo equational properties. In: Aldini, A., Barthe, G., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FOSAD 2007-2009. LNCS, vol. 5705, pp. 1–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03829-7_1

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Escobar, S., Meseguer, J.: Symbolic model checking of infinite-state systems using narrowing. In: Baader, F. (ed.) RTA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4533, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73449-9_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Escobar, S., Meseguer, J., Sasse, R.: Variant narrowing and equational unification. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 238(3), 103–119 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Escobar, S., Sasse, R., Meseguer, J.: Folding variant narrowing and optimal variant termination. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 81(7–8), 898–928 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Gnaedig, I., Kirchner, H.: Computing constructor forms with non terminating rewrite programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2006), pp. 121–132. Association for Computing Machinery (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jones, N.D., Gomard, C.K., Sestoft, P.: Partial Evaluation and Automatic Program Generation. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Leuschel, M.: Improving homeomorphic embedding for online termination. In: Flener, P. (ed.) LOPSTR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1559, pp. 199–218. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48958-4_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Lloyd, J.W., Shepherdson, J.C.: Partial evaluation in logic programming. J. Logic Program. 11(3–4), 217–242 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Martens, B., Gallagher, J.: Ensuring global termination of partial deduction while allowing flexible polyvariance. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1995), pp. 597–611. The MIT Press (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Meier, S., Schmidt, B., Cremers, C., Basin, D.: The TAMARIN prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 696–701. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Meseguer, J.: Variant-based satisfiability in initial algebras. In: Artho, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FTSCS 2015. CCIS, vol. 596, pp. 3–34. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29510-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Meseguer, J.: Variant-based satisfiability in initial algebras. Sci. Comput. Program. 154, 3–41 (2018)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Meseguer, J.: Generalized rewrite theories, coherence completion, and symbolic methods. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 110, 100483 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Meseguer, J., Palomino, M., Martí-Oliet, N.: Equational abstractions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 403(2–3), 239–264 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Meseguer, J., Thati, P.: Symbolic reachability analysis using narrowing and its application to verification of cryptographic protocols. Higher-Order Symb. Comput. 20(1–2), 123–160 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Middeldorp, A., Hamoen, E.: Counterexamples to completeness results for basic narrowing (extended abstract). In: Kirchner, H., Levi, G. (eds.) ALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 632, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0013830

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: The real-time Maude tool. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 332–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. The Presto Website (2020). http://safe-tools.dsic.upv.es/presto

  47. Roşu, G.: \(\mathbb{K} \): a semantic framework for programming languages and formal analysis tools. In: Dependable Software Systems Engineering. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - D: Information and Communication Security, vol. 50, pp. 186–206. IOS Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rodríguez, A., Durán, F., Rutle, A., Kristensen, L.M.: Executing multilevel domain-specific models in Maude. J. Object Technol. 18(2), 4:1–4:21 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Slagle, J.R.: Automated theorem-proving for theories with simplifiers, commutativity, and associativity. J. ACM 21(4), 622–642 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Viry, P.: Equational rules for rewriting logic. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 285(2), 487–517 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VRAIN, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

    María Alpuente, Santiago Escobar & Julia Sapiña

  2. DMIF, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy

    Demis Ballis

  3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Jose Meseguer

Authors
  1. María Alpuente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Demis Ballis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Santiago Escobar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jose Meseguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julia Sapiña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Sapiña .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IMDEA Software Institute, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain

    Pedro Lopez-Garcia

  2. Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    John P. Gallagher

  3. Università di Verona, Verona, Italy

    Roberto Giacobazzi

Appendices

A Full Specification of the Bank Account System

figure l

B Specialization of the Bank Account System \(\mathscr {R}_b\)

figure m

C Specialization of the Bank Account System \(\mathscr {R}_b\) with Compression

figure n

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Escobar, S., Meseguer, J., Sapiña, J. (2023). Optimizing Maude Programs via Program Specialization. In: Lopez-Garcia, P., Gallagher, J.P., Giacobazzi, R. (eds) Analysis, Verification and Transformation for Declarative Programming and Intelligent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13160. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31476-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31476-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31475-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31476-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics