Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

We explore in this chapter questions of existence and uniqueness for solutions to stochastic differential equations and offer a study of their properties. This endeavor is really a study of diffusion processes. Loosely speaking, the term diffusion is attributed to a Markov process which has continuous sample paths and can be characterized in terms of its infinitesimal generator.

Stochastic Differential Equations

A type system is a syntactic method for automatically checking the absence of certain erroneous behaviors by classifying program phrases according to the kinds of values they compute. The study of type systems -- and of programming languages from a type-theoretic perspective -- has important applications in software engineering, language design, high-performance compilers, and security.This text provides a comprehensive introduction both to type systems in computer science and to the basic theory of programming languages. The approach is pragmatic and operational; each new concept is motivated by programming examples and the more theoretical sections are driven by the needs of implementations. Each chapter is accompanied by numerous exercises and solutions, as well as a running implementation, available via the Web. Dependencies between chapters are explicitly identified, allowing readers to choose a variety of paths through the material.The core topics include the untyped lambda-calculus, simple type systems, type reconstruction, universal and existential polymorphism, subtyping, bounded quantification, recursive types, kinds, and type operators. Extended case studies develop a variety of approaches to modeling the features of object-oriented languages.

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/contents.pdf

Types and Programming Languages

ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Complete formal verification is the only known way to guarantee that a system is free of programming errorsWe present our experience in performing the formal, machine-checked verification of the seL4 microkernel from an abstract specification down to its C implementation We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, and hardware, and we used a unique design approach that fuses formal and operating systems techniques To our knowledge, this is the first formal proof of functional correctness of a complete, general-purpose operating-system kernel Functional correctness means here that the implementation always strictly follows our high-level abstract specification of kernel behaviour This encompasses traditional design and implementation safety properties such as the kernel will never crash, and it will never perform an unsafe operation It also proves much more: we can predict precisely how the kernel will behave in every possible situationseL4, a third-generation microkernel of L4 provenance, comprises 8,700 lines of C code and 600 lines of assembler Its performance is comparable to other high-performance L4 kernels

/pdf/sel4-formal-verification-of-an-os-kernel-20d8n4rs7p.pdf

seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel

Simple type theory is formulated for use with the generic theorem prover Isabelle. This requires explicit type inference rules. There are function, product, and subset types, which may be empty. Descriptions (the eta-operator) introduce the Axiom of Choice. Higher-order logic is obtained through reflection between formulae and terms of type bool. Recursive types and functions can be formally constructed. Isabelle proof procedures are described. The logic appears suitable for general mathematics as well as computational problems.

A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types (for Isabelle)

Making Sense of Specifications: The Formalization of SET (Transcript of Discussion)

Combinatorial design theory studies set systems with certain balance and symmetry properties and has applications to computer science and elsewhere. This paper presents a modular approach to formalising designs for the first time using Isabelle and assesses the usability of a locale-centric approach to formalisations of mathematical structures. We demonstrate how locales can be used to specify numerous types of designs and their hierarchy. The resulting library, which is concise and adaptable, includes formal definitions and proofs for many key properties, operations, and theorems on the construction and existence of designs.

A Modular First Formalisation of Combinatorial Design Theory

The famous BAN paper [3] determined the research agenda of security-protocol verification for nearly a decade. Many others had worked on verifying security protocols, and the problem appeared to be intractable. The real-world systems were too complicated; too many different things could go wrong; the formal treatments were unusable. The BAN logic was abstract, formalizing intuitive notions directly. For example, if you receive a message containing a secret password and you know that the password is known only to you and Joe, then the message must have come from Joe. BAN proofs were short and simple, and each reasoning step could easily be rendered into plain English. BAN certainly had some deficiencies. The paper incorrectly claimed that the Otway-Rees protocol could be simplified in a certain way. In fact, an intruder could attack this protocol, masquerading as Bob to Alice, when Bob was not even present [7]. More generally, BAN ignored all non-encrypted information, so it could " verify " any protocol that broadcast the session key in clear. Some criticisms arose from a misunderstanding of the logic's objectives. BAN assumed that the protocol would not give secrets away—a defensible assumption, since cryptanalysts already knew how to investigate such questions. BAN's strength was that it provided a precise notation and deductive mechanism for reasoning about freshness and authenticity. Researchers introduced a great variety of other authentication logics. These were generally more complicated than BAN. Dietrich [4] published a proof of the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol using the belief logic NCP (Non-monotonic Cryptographic Protocols). This logic allowed formulae to be retracted as well as asserted, and the author accordingly had to write lengthy lists of facts holding at each step. NCP must have been more precise than BAN, but it was obviously difficult to use. Some people attempted to build automatic provers for the BAN logic, which was pointless: BAN logic proofs were easy to write, and if you wrote them yourself, you were unlikely to reach an absurd conclusion. For the more complicated authentication logics, automation became essential; Brackin [2] was a leading exponent of this approach. As do-it-yourself logics

Lawrence C. Paulson

Papers

A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types (for Isabelle)

Making Sense of Specifications: The Formalization of SET (Transcript of Discussion)

A Modular First Formalisation of Combinatorial Design Theory

The Descent of BAN

Young's Inequality for Increasing Functions