Transformational Verification of Linear Temporal Logic

We present a new method for verifying Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) properties of finite state reactive systems based on logic programming and program transformation. We encode a finite state system and an LTL property which we want to verify as a logic program on infinite lists. Then we apply a verification method consisting of two steps. In the first step we transform the logic program that encodes the given system and the given property into a new program belonging to the class of the so-called linear monadic !-programs (which are stratified, linear recursive programs defining nullary predicates or unary predicates on infinite lists). This transformation is performed by applying rules that preserve correctness. In the second step we verify the property of interest by using suitable proof rules for linear monadic !-programs. These proof rules can be encoded as a logic program which always terminates, if evaluated by using tabled resolution. Although our method uses standard program transformation techniques, the computational complexity of the derived verification algorithm is essentially the same as the one of the Lichtenstein-Pnueli algorithm [9], which uses sophisticated ad-hoc techniques

Deciding Full Branching Time Logic by Program Transformation

We present a method based on logic program transformation, for verifying Computation Tree Logic (CTL*) properties of finite state reactive systems. The finite state systems and the CTL* properties we want to verify, are encoded as logic programs on infinite lists. Our verification method consists of two steps. In the first step we transform the logic program that encodes the given system and the given property, into a monadic ω -program, that is, a stratified program defining nullary or unary predicates on infinite lists. This transformation is performed by applying unfold/fold rules that preserve the perfect model of the initial program. In the second step we verify the property of interest by using a proof method for monadic ω-program

Program transformation for development, verification, and synthesis of programs

This paper briefly describes the use of the program transformation methodology for the development of correct and efficient programs. In particular, we will refer to the case of constraint logic programs and, through some examples, we will show how by program transformation, one can improve, synthesize, and verify programs

Program Transformation for Development, Verification, and Synthesis of Software

In this paper we briefly describe the use of the program transformation methodology for the development of correct and efficient programs. We will consider, in particular, the case of the transformation and the development of constraint logic programs

Proving theorems by program transformation

In this paper we present an overview of the unfold/fold proof method, a method for proving theorems about programs, based on program transformation. As a metalanguage for specifying programs and program properties we adopt constraint logic programming (CLP), and we present a set of transformation rules (including the familiar unfolding and folding rules) which preserve the semantics of CLP programs. Then, we show how program transformation strategies can be used, similarly to theorem proving tactics, for guiding the application of the transformation rules and inferring the properties to be proved. We work out three examples: (i) the proof of predicate equivalences, applied to the verification of equality between CCS processes, (ii) the proof of first order formulas via an extension of the quantifier elimination method, and (iii) the proof of temporal properties of infinite state concurrent systems, by using a transformation strategy that performs program specialization

Verification of Imperative Programs by Constraint Logic Program Transformation

We present a method for verifying partial correctness properties of imperative programs that manipulate integers and arrays by using techniques based on the transformation of constraint logic programs (CLP). We use CLP as a metalanguage for representing imperative programs, their executions, and their properties. First, we encode the correctness of an imperative program, say prog, as the negation of a predicate 'incorrect' defined by a CLP program T. By construction, 'incorrect' holds in the least model of T if and only if the execution of prog from an initial configuration eventually halts in an error configuration. Then, we apply to program T a sequence of transformations that preserve its least model semantics. These transformations are based on well-known transformation rules, such as unfolding and folding, guided by suitable transformation strategies, such as specialization and generalization. The objective of the transformations is to derive a new CLP program TransfT where the predicate 'incorrect' is defined either by (i) the fact 'incorrect.' (and in this case prog is not correct), or by (ii) the empty set of clauses (and in this case prog is correct). In the case where we derive a CLP program such that neither (i) nor (ii) holds, we iterate the transformation. Since the problem is undecidable, this process may not terminate. We show through examples that our method can be applied in a rather systematic way, and is amenable to automation by transferring to the field of program verification many techniques developed in the field of program transformation.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

Combining Static and Dynamic Contract Checking for Curry

Static type systems are usually not sufficient to express all requirements on function calls. Hence, contracts with pre- and postconditions can be used to express more complex constraints on operations. Contracts can be checked at run time to ensure that operations are only invoked with reasonable arguments and return intended results. Although such dynamic contract checking provides more reliable program execution, it requires execution time and could lead to program crashes that might be detected with more advanced methods at compile time. To improve this situation for declarative languages, we present an approach to combine static and dynamic contract checking for the functional logic language Curry. Based on a formal model of contract checking for functional logic programming, we propose an automatic method to verify contracts at compile time. If a contract is successfully verified, dynamic checking of it can be omitted. This method decreases execution time without degrading reliable program execution. In the best case, when all contracts are statically verified, it provides trust in the software since crashes due to contract violations cannot occur during program execution.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 27th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2017), Namur, Belgium, 10-12 October 2017 (arXiv:1708.07854

Proof Theory, Transformations, and Logic Programming for Debugging Security Protocols

We define a sequent calculus to formally specify, simulate, debug and verify security protocols. In our sequents we distinguish between the current knowledge of principals and the current global state of the session. Hereby, we can describe the operational semantics of principals and of an intruder in a simple and modular way. Furthermore, using proof theoretic tools like the analysis of permutability of rules, we are able to find efficient proof strategies that we prove complete for special classes of security protocols including Needham-Schroeder. Based on the results of this preliminary analysis, we have implemented a Prolog meta-interpreter which allows for rapid prototyping and for checking safety properties of security protocols, and we have applied it for finding error traces and proving correctness of practical examples

Finite Countermodel Based Verification for Program Transformation (A Case Study)

Both automatic program verification and program transformation are based on program analysis. In the past decade a number of approaches using various automatic general-purpose program transformation techniques (partial deduction, specialization, supercompilation) for verification of unreachability properties of computing systems were introduced and demonstrated. On the other hand, the semantics based unfold-fold program transformation methods pose themselves diverse kinds of reachability tasks and try to solve them, aiming at improving the semantics tree of the program being transformed. That means some general-purpose verification methods may be used for strengthening program transformation techniques. This paper considers the question how finite countermodels for safety verification method might be used in Turchin's supercompilation method. We extract a number of supercompilation sub-algorithms trying to solve reachability problems and demonstrate use of an external countermodel finder for solving some of the problems.Comment: In Proceedings VPT 2015, arXiv:1512.0221