Using ACL2 to Verify Loop Pipelining in Behavioral Synthesis

Behavioral synthesis involves compiling an Electronic System-Level (ESL) design into its Register-Transfer Level (RTL) implementation. Loop pipelining is one of the most critical and complex transformations employed in behavioral synthesis. Certifying the loop pipelining algorithm is challenging because there is a huge semantic gap between the input sequential design and the output pipelined implementation making it infeasible to verify their equivalence with automated sequential equivalence checking techniques. We discuss our ongoing effort using ACL2 to certify loop pipelining transformation. The completion of the proof is work in progress. However, some of the insights developed so far may already be of value to the ACL2 community. In particular, we discuss the key invariant we formalized, which is very different from that used in most pipeline proofs. We discuss the needs for this invariant, its formalization in ACL2, and our envisioned proof using the invariant. We also discuss some trade-offs, challenges, and insights developed in course of the project.Comment: In Proceedings ACL2 2014, arXiv:1406.123

Synthesizing Certified Code

Code certification is a lightweight approach for formally demonstrating software quality. Its basic idea is to require code producers to provide formal proofs that their code satisfies certain quality properties. These proofs serve as certificates that can be checked independently. Since code certification uses the same underlying technology as program verification, it requires detailed annotations (e.g., loop invariants) to make the proofs possible. However, manually adding annotations to the code is time-consuming and error-prone. We address this problem by combining code certification with automatic program synthesis. Given a high-level specification, our approach simultaneously generates code and all annotations required to certify the generated code. We describe a certification extension of AutoBayes, a synthesis tool for automatically generating data analysis programs. Based on built-in domain knowledge, proof annotations are added and used to generate proof obligations that are discharged by the automated theorem prover E-SETHEO. We demonstrate our approach by certifying operator- and memory-safety on a data-classification program. For this program, our approach was faster and more precise than PolySpace, a commercial static analysis tool

Formal representation and proof for cooperative games

In this contribution we present some work we have been doing in representing and proving theorems from the area of economics, and mainly we present work we will do in a project in which we will apply mechanised theorem proving tools to a class of economic problems for which very few general tools currently exist. For mechanised theorem proving, the research introduces the field to a new application domain with a large user base; more specifically, the researchers are collaborating with developers working on state-of-the-art theorem provers. For economics, the research will provide tools for handling a hard class of problems; more generally, as the first application of mechanised theorem proving to centrally involve economic theorists, it aims to properly introduce mechanised theorem proving techniques to the discipline.\u

Edit and verify

Automated theorem provers are used in extended static checking, where they are the performance bottleneck. Extended static checkers are run typically after incremental changes to the code. We propose to exploit this usage pattern to improve performance. We present two approaches of how to do so and a full solution

Premise Selection and External Provers for HOL4

Learning-assisted automated reasoning has recently gained popularity among the users of Isabelle/HOL, HOL Light, and Mizar. In this paper, we present an add-on to the HOL4 proof assistant and an adaptation of the HOLyHammer system that provides machine learning-based premise selection and automated reasoning also for HOL4. We efficiently record the HOL4 dependencies and extract features from the theorem statements, which form a basis for premise selection. HOLyHammer transforms the HOL4 statements in the various TPTP-ATP proof formats, which are then processed by the ATPs. We discuss the different evaluation settings: ATPs, accessible lemmas, and premise numbers. We measure the performance of HOLyHammer on the HOL4 standard library. The results are combined accordingly and compared with the HOL Light experiments, showing a comparably high quality of predictions. The system directly benefits HOL4 users by automatically finding proofs dependencies that can be reconstructed by Metis

Using formal methods to support testing

Formal methods and testing are two important approaches that assist in the development of high quality software. While traditionally these approaches have been seen as rivals, in recent years a new consensus has developed in which they are seen as complementary. This article reviews the state of the art regarding ways in which the presence of a formal specification can be used to assist testing