A Calculus for Amortized Expected Runtimes

Abstract

We develop a weakest-precondition-style calculus à la Dijkstra for reasoning about amortized expected runtimes of randomized algorithms with access to dynamic memory — the aert calculus. Our calculus is truly quantitative, i.e. instead of Boolean valued predicates, it manipulates real-valued functions. En route to the aert calculus, we study the ert calculus for reasoning about expected runtimes of Kaminski et al. [2018] extended by capabilities for handling dynamic memory, thus enabling compositional and local reasoning about randomized data structures . This extension employs runtime separation logic , which has been foreshadowed by Matheja [2020] and then implemented in Isabelle/HOL by Haslbeck [2021]. In addition to Haslbeck’s results, we further prove soundness of the so-extended ert calculus with respect to an operational Markov decision process model featuring countably-branching nondeterminism, provide extensive intuitive explanations, and provide proof rules enabling separation logic-style verification for upper bounds on expected runtimes. Finally, we build the so-called potential method for amortized analysis into the ert calculus, thus obtaining the aert calculus. Soundness of the aert calculus is obtained from the soundness of the ert calculus and some probabilistic form of telescoping. Since one needs to be able to handle changes in potential which can in principle be both positive or negative, the aert calculus needs to be — essentially — capable of handling certain signed random variables. A particularly pleasing feature of our solution is that, unlike e.g. Kozen [1985], we obtain a loop rule for our signed random variables, and furthermore, unlike e.g. Kaminski and Katoen [2017], the aert calculus makes do without the need for involved technical machinery keeping track of the integrability of the random variables. Finally, we present case studies, including a formal analysis of a randomized delete-insert-find-any set data structure [Brodal et al. 1996], which yields a constant expected runtime per operation, whereas no deterministic algorithm can achieve this.