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

Author(s): Asanovic, K; Bodik, R; Catanzaro, B; Gebis, J; Husbands, P; Keutzer, K; Patterson, D; Plishker, W; Shalf, J; Williams, SW | Abstract: The recent switch to parallel microprocessors is a milestone in the history of computing. Industry has laid out a roadmap for multicore designs that preserves the programming paradigm of the past via binary compatibility and cache coherence. Conventional wisdom is now to double the number of cores on a chip with each silicon generation. A multidisciplinary group of Berkeley researchers met nearly two years to discuss this change. Our view is that this evolutionary approach to parallel hardware and software may work from 2 or 8 processor systems, but is likely to face diminishing returns as 16 and 32 processor systems are realized, just as returns fell with greater instruction-level parallelism. We believe that much can be learned by examining the success of parallelism at the extremes of the computing spectrum, namely embedded computing and high performance computing. This led us to frame the parallel landscape with seven questions, and to recommend the following: • The overarching goal should be to make it easy to write programs that execute efficiently on highly parallel computing systems • The target should be 1000s of cores per chip, as these chips are built from processing elements that are the most efficient in MIPS (Million Instructions per Second) per watt, MIPS per area of silicon, and MIPS per development dollar. • Instead of traditional benchmarks, use 13 “Dwarfs” to design and evaluate parallel programming models and architectures. (A dwarf is an algorithmic method that captures a pattern of computation and communication.) • “Autotuners” should play a larger role than conventional compilers in translating parallel programs. • To maximize programmer productivity, future programming models must be more human-centric than the conventional focus on hardware or applications. • To be successful, programming models should be independent of the number of processors. • To maximize application efficiency, programming models should support a wide range of data types and successful models of parallelism: task-level parallelism, word-level parallelism, and bit-level parallelism. 1 The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View From Berkeley • Architects should not include features that significantly affect performance or energy if programmers cannot accurately measure their impact via performance counters and energy counters. • Traditional operating systems will be deconstructed and operating system functionality will be orchestrated using libraries and virtual machines. • To explore the design space rapidly, use system emulators based on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that are highly scalable and low cost. Since real world applications are naturally parallel and hardware is naturally parallel, what we need is a programming model, system software, and a supporting architecture that are naturally parallel. Researchers have the rare opportunity to re-invent these cornerstones of computing, provided they simplify the efficient programming of highly parallel systems.

/pdf/the-landscape-of-parallel-computing-research-a-view-from-1i5pswggnf.pdf

The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

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

One approach to model checking software is based on the abstract-check-refine paradigm: build an abstract model, then check the desired property, and if the check fails, refine the model and start over. We introduce the concept of lazy abstraction to integrate and optimize the three phases of the abstract-check-refine loop. Lazy abstraction continuously builds and refines a single abstract model on demand, driven by the model checker, so that different parts of the model may exhibit different degrees of precision, namely just enough to verify the desired property. We present an algorithm for model checking safety properties using lazy abstraction and describe an implementation of the algorithm applied to C programs. We also provide sufficient conditions for the termination of the method.

Lazy abstraction

Sketching is a software synthesis approach where the programmer develops a partial implementation - a sketch - and a separate specification of the desired functionality. The synthesizer then completes the sketch to behave like the specification. The correctness of the synthesized implementation is guaranteed by the compiler, which allows, among other benefits, rapid development of highly tuned implementations without the fear of introducing bugs.We develop SKETCH, a language for finite programs with linguistic support for sketching. Finite programs include many highperformance kernels, including cryptocodes. In contrast to prior synthesizers, which had to be equipped with domain-specific rules, SKETCH completes sketches by means of a combinatorial search based on generalized boolean satisfiability. Consequently, our combinatorial synthesizer is complete for the class of finite programs: it is guaranteed to complete any sketch in theory, and in practice has scaled to realistic programming problems.Freed from domain rules, we can now write sketches as simpleto-understand partial programs, which are regular programs in which difficult code fragments are replaced with holes to be filled by the synthesizer. Holes may stand for index expressions, lookup tables, or bitmasks, but the programmer can easily define new kinds of holes using a single versatile synthesis operator.We have used SKETCH to synthesize an efficient implementation of the AES cipher standard. The synthesizer produces the most complex part of the implementation and runs in about an hour.

/pdf/combinatorial-sketching-for-finite-programs-4ma0rkgvm7.pdf

Combinatorial sketching for finite programs

Program verification is a promising approach to improving program quality, because it can search all possible program executions for specific errors. However, the need to formally describe correct behavior or errors is a major barrier to the widespread adoption of program verification, since programmers historically have been reluctant to write formal specifications. Automating the process of formulating specifications would remove a barrier to program verification and enhance its practicality.This paper describes specification mining, a machine learning approach to discovering formal specifications of the protocols that code must obey when interacting with an application program interface or abstract data type. Starting from the assumption that a working program is well enough debugged to reveal strong hints of correct protocols, our tool infers a specification by observing program execution and concisely summarizing the frequent interaction patterns as state machines that capture both temporal and data dependences. These state machines can be examined by a programmer, to refine the specification and identify errors, and can be utilized by automatic verification tools, to find bugs.Our preliminary experience with the mining tool has been promising. We were able to learn specifications that not only captured the correct protocol, but also discovered serious bugs.

Mining specifications

Writing programs that scale with increasing numbers of cores should be as easy as writing programs for sequential computers

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1562764.1562783

A view of the parallel computing landscape

National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Expeditions in Computing Project ExCAPE Award CCF 1138996)

Syntax-guided synthesis

Reuse of existing code from class libraries and frameworks is often difficult because APIs are complex and the client code required to use the APIs can be hard to write. We observed that a common scenario is that the programmer knows what type of object he needs, but does not know how to write the code to get the object.In order to help programmers write API client code more easily, we developed techniques for synthesizing jungloid code fragments automatically given a simple query that describes that desired code in terms of input and output types. A jungloid is simply a unary expression; jungloids are simple, enabling synthesis, but are also versatile, covering many coding problems, and composable, combining to form more complex code fragments. We synthesize jungloids using both API method signatures and jungloids mined from a corpus of sample client programs.We implemented a tool, prospector, based on these techniques. prospector is integrated with the Eclipse IDE code assistance feature, and it infers queries from context so there is no need for the programmer to write queries. We tested prospector on a set of real programming problems involving APIs; prospector found the desired solution for 18 of 20 problems. We also evaluated prospector in a user study, finding that programmers solved programming problems more quickly and with more reuse when using prospector than without prospector.

Rastislav Bodik

Papers

Combinatorial sketching for finite programs

Mining specifications

A view of the parallel computing landscape

Syntax-guided synthesis

Jungloid mining: helping to navigate the API jungle