Regular Abstractions for Array Systems

Verifying safety and liveness over array systems is a highly challenging problem. Array systems naturally capture parameterized systems such as distributed protocols with an unbounded number of processes. Such distributed protocols often exploit process IDs during their computation, resulting in array systems whose element values range over an infinite domain. In this paper, we develop a novel framework for proving safety and liveness over array systems. The crux of the framework is to overapproximate an array system as a string rewriting system (i.e. over a finite alphabet) by means of a new predicate abstraction that exploits the so-called indexed predicates. This allows us to tap into powerful verification methods for string rewriting systems that have been heavily developed in the last few decades (e.g. regular model checking). We demonstrate how our method yields simple, automatically verifiable proofs of safety and liveness properties for challenging examples, including Dijkstra's self-stabilizing protocol and the Chang-Roberts leader election protocol

Multi-level Contextual Type Theory

Contextual type theory distinguishes between bound variables and meta-variables to write potentially incomplete terms in the presence of binders. It has found good use as a framework for concise explanations of higher-order unification, characterize holes in proofs, and in developing a foundation for programming with higher-order abstract syntax, as embodied by the programming and reasoning environment Beluga. However, to reason about these applications, we need to introduce meta^2-variables to characterize the dependency on meta-variables and bound variables. In other words, we must go beyond a two-level system granting only bound variables and meta-variables. In this paper we generalize contextual type theory to n levels for arbitrary n, so as to obtain a formal system offering bound variables, meta-variables and so on all the way to meta^n-variables. We obtain a uniform account by collapsing all these different kinds of variables into a single notion of variabe indexed by some level k. We give a decidable bi-directional type system which characterizes beta-eta-normal forms together with a generalized substitution operation.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2011, arXiv:1110.668

Proof Outlines as Proof Certificates: A System Description

We apply the foundational proof certificate (FPC) framework to the problem of designing high-level outlines of proofs. The FPC framework provides a means to formally define and check a wide range of proof evidence. A focused proof system is central to this framework and such a proof system provides an interesting approach to proof reconstruction during the process of proof checking (relying on an underlying logic programming implementation). Here, we illustrate how the FPC framework can be used to design proof outlines and then to exploit proof checkers as a means for expanding outlines into fully detailed proofs. In order to validate this approach to proof outlines, we have built the ACheck system that allows us to take a sequence of theorems and apply the proof outline "do the obvious induction and close the proof using previously proved lemmas".Comment: In Proceedings WoF'15, arXiv:1511.0252

Isabelle/PIDE as Platform for Educational Tools

The Isabelle/PIDE platform addresses the question whether proof assistants of the LCF family are suitable as technological basis for educational tools. The traditionally strong logical foundations of systems like HOL, Coq, or Isabelle have so far been counter-balanced by somewhat inaccessible interaction via the TTY (or minor variations like the well-known Proof General / Emacs interface). Thus the fundamental question of math education tools with fully-formal background theories has often been answered negatively due to accidental weaknesses of existing proof engines. The idea of "PIDE" (which means "Prover IDE") is to integrate existing provers like Isabelle into a larger environment, that facilitates access by end-users and other tools. We use Scala to expose the proof engine in ML to the JVM world, where many user-interfaces, editor frameworks, and educational tools already exist. This shall ultimately lead to combined mathematical assistants, where the logical engine is in the background, without obstructing the view on applications of formal methods, formalized mathematics, and math education in particular.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Proof Generation from Delta-Decisions

We show how to generate and validate logical proofs of unsatisfiability from delta-complete decision procedures that rely on error-prone numerical algorithms. Solving this problem is important for ensuring correctness of the decision procedures. At the same time, it is a new approach for automated theorem proving over real numbers. We design a first-order calculus, and transform the computational steps of constraint solving into logic proofs, which are then validated using proof-checking algorithms. As an application, we demonstrate how proofs generated from our solver can establish many nonlinear lemmas in the the formal proof of the Kepler Conjecture.Comment: Appeared in SYNASC'1

A framework for proof certificates in finite state exploration

Model checkers use automated state exploration in order to prove various properties such as reachability, non-reachability, and bisimulation over state transition systems. While model checkers have proved valuable for locating errors in computer models and specifications, they can also be used to prove properties that might be consumed by other computational logic systems, such as theorem provers. In such a situation, a prover must be able to trust that the model checker is correct. Instead of attempting to prove the correctness of a model checker, we ask that it outputs its "proof evidence" as a formally defined document--a proof certificate--and that this document is checked by a trusted proof checker. We describe a framework for defining and checking proof certificates for a range of model checking problems. The core of this framework is a (focused) proof system that is augmented with premises that involve "clerk and expert" predicates. This framework is designed so that soundness can be guaranteed independently of any concerns for the correctness of the clerk and expert specifications. To illustrate the flexibility of this framework, we define and formally check proof certificates for reachability and non-reachability in graphs, as well as bisimulation and non-bisimulation for labeled transition systems. Finally, we describe briefly a reference checker that we have implemented for this framework.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0837