# Improving Analysis Using Trust Assertions

This section describes the use of trust assertions for improving (abstract interpretation based) top-down analyses. Trust assertions are (user given) assertions that do hold of the program. Therefore, analysis can take advantage of them to improve the information inferred.

A trust assertion for a given predicate will be denoted CS, where C is a call pattern and S a success pattern. Trust assertions for a given predicate are considered closed, that is, the set of call patterns covers all possible calls to the predicate.

Note: Reconsider this: It is not true for trust assertions inferred during inter-modular analysis. It may not be convenient, either, when having true/trust and check assertions intermixed.

In the following, LL' will denote the abstract pattern inferred for a given predicate call by the analysis which is going to be improved with trust assertions. In the absence of the predicate, the success pattern cannot be inferred: however, it can be approximated a priori by the downwards closed information in the call pattern. Thus, if this is the case, L' = L*, where L* denotes the downwards closure restriction of L (i. e., the restriction of L to only its downwards closed information).

## Complementation of Trust Assertions

Programmers are lazy writing trust assertions. This is not to blame them: it is just a matter of fact. They try to write as less as possible, and therefore make certain (justified) assumptions when writing assertions. Because of this, trust assertions need to be complemented in order to have as much information as possible available to the analysis.

One thing that programmers usually do is to write things like:

ground(X) var(Y)

where it is obvious that ground(X) does also hold on success. In order to deal with this case, trust assertions of the form CS are replaced by CS', where:

S' = C* meet S

Another usual assumption in writing assertions is to say things once and for all. For example, programmers will probable write:

true ground(X)

var(X) var(Y)

where it is obvious that ground(X) does also hold on success in the second case. In order to deal with this case, trust assertions of the form CS' are replaced by CS” where:

S” = S' meet (meet S'_i)

being C_iS'_i a trust assertion such that C_i >= C.

Now we are in a position to take full advantage of all the information given in trust assertions.

## Using Trust Assertions

Given abstract pattern LL', the success pattern can be improved by using the available trust assertions. The resulting success pattern is denoted L_trust. For better precision the most concrete applicable trust assertion should be used. Consider the set:

St = {S”_i | C_i >= L and not exists j =/= i . C_j =< C_i }

then:

L_trust = L' meet (union St)

However, St might be empty. In this case, no trust assertion is guaranteed to hold. But the call pattern inferred might be an over-approximation of the call patterns of some trust assertions. And one of them must hold (since the trust assertions are supposed to be closed). Thus, in this case St is defined as:

St = {S”_i | C_i =< L and not exists j =/= i . C_j >= C_i | }

Nonetheless, it might also be the case that this set is empty. Then, since the trust assertions are supposed to be closed, this is an error: the inferred call pattern does not cover the possible calls.

But, in order to guarantee this error, all trust assertions should be applicable to the analysis domain (all call patterns should be fully abstractable in that domain). If this is not the case, a default success pattern can be used by defining:

Note: In contrast to the above, here St must include all trust assertions, whether or not applicable to the domain. This implies that the second St above might be incorrect!

St = {S”_i | exists i}