Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments

Disproving inductive entailments in separation logic via base pair approximation

We give a procedure for establishing the invalidity of logical entailments in the symbolic heap fragment of separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, as used in program verification. This disproof procedure attempts to infer the existence of a countermodel to an entailment by comparing computable model summaries, a.k.a. bases (modified from earlier work), of its antecedent and consequent. Our method is sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete. Experiments with the implementation of our disproof procedure indicate that it can correctly identify a substantial proportion of the invalid entailments that arise in practice, at reasonably low time cost. Accordingly, it can be used, e.g., to improve the output of theorem provers by returning “no” answers in addition to “yes” and “unknown” answers to entailment questions, and to speed up proof search or automated theory exploration by filtering out invalid entailments

A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates

We show that the satisfiability problem for the "symbolic heap" fragment of separation logic with general inductively defined predicates - which includes most fragments employed in program verification - is decidable. Our decision procedure is based on the computation of a certain fixed point from the definition of an inductive predicate, called its "base", that exactly characterises its satisfiability. A complexity analysis of our decision procedure shows that it runs, in the worst case, in exponential time. In fact, we show that the satisfiability problem for our inductive predicates is EXPTIME-complete, and becomes NP-complete when the maximum arity over all predicates is bounded by a constant. Finally, we provide an implementation of our decision procedure, and analyse its performance both on a synthetically generated set of test formulas, and on a second test set harvested from the separation logic literature. For the large majority of these test cases, our tool reports times in the low milliseconds

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

We investigate the *model checking* problem for symbolic-heap separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, i.e., the problem of checking that a given stack-heap memory state satisfies a given formula in this language, as arises e.g. in software testing or runtime verification. First, we show that the problem is *decidable*; specifically, we present a bottom-up fixed point algorithm that decides the problem and runs in exponential time in the size of the problem instance. Second, we show that, while model checking for the full language is EXPTIME-complete, the problem becomes NP-complete or PTIME-solvable when we impose natural syntactic restrictions on the schemata defining the inductive predicates. We additionally present NP and PTIME algorithms for these restricted fragments. Finally, we report on the experimental performance of our procedures on a variety of specifications extracted from programs, exercising multiple combinations of syntactic restrictions

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

We investigate the model checking problem for symbolic-heap separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, i.e., the problem of checking that a given stack-heap memory state satisfies a given formula in this language, as arises e.g. in software testing or runtime verification. First, we show that the problem is decidable; specifically, we present a bottom-up fixed point algorithm that decides the problem and runs in exponential time in the size of the problem instance. Second, we show that, while model checking for the full language is EXPTIME-complete, the problem becomes NP-complete or PTIME-solvable when we impose natural syntactic restrictions on the schemata defining the inductive predicates. We additionally present NP and PTIME algorithms for these restricted fragments. Finally, we report on the experimental performance of our procedures on a variety of specifications extracted from programs, exercising multiple combinations of syntactic restrictions

Automated Deduction – CADE 28

This open access book constitutes the proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE 28, held virtually in July 2021. The 29 full papers and 7 system descriptions presented together with 2 invited papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 76 submissions. CADE is the major forum for the presentation of research in all aspects of automated deduction, including foundations, applications, implementations, and practical experience. The papers are organized in the following topics: Logical foundations; theory and principles; implementation and application; ATP and AI; and system descriptions

A Generalized Hybrid Hoare Logic

Deductive verification of hybrid systems (HSs) increasingly attracts more attention in recent years because of its power and scalability, where a powerful specification logic for HSs is the cornerstone. Often, HSs are naturally modelled by concurrent processes that communicate with each other. However, existing specification logics cannot easily handle such models. In this paper, we present a specification logic and proof system for Hybrid Communicating Sequential Processes (HCSP), that extends CSP with ordinary differential equations (ODE) and interrupts to model interactions between continuous and discrete evolution. Because it includes a rich set of algebraic operators, complicated hybrid systems can be easily modelled in an algebra-like compositional way in HCSP. Our logic can be seen as a generalization and simplification of existing hybrid Hoare logics (HHL) based on duration calculus (DC), as well as a conservative extension of existing Hoare logics for concurrent programs. Its assertion logic is the first-order theory of differential equations (FOD), together with assertions about traces recording communications, readiness, and continuous evolution. We prove continuous relative completeness of the logic w.r.t. FOD, as well as discrete relative completeness in the sense that continuous behaviour can be arbitrarily approximated by discretization. Besides, we discuss how to simplify proofs using the logic by providing a simplified assertion language and a set of sound and complete rules for differential invariants for ODEs. Finally, we implement a proof assistant for the logic in Isabelle/HOL, and apply it to verify two case studies to illustrate the power and scalability of our logic

Automated Reasoning

This volume, LNAI 13385, constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR 2022, held in Haifa, Israel, in August 2022. The 32 full research papers and 9 short papers presented together with two invited talks were carefully reviewed and selected from 85 submissions. The papers focus on the following topics: Satisfiability, SMT Solving,Arithmetic; Calculi and Orderings; Knowledge Representation and Jutsification; Choices, Invariance, Substitutions and Formalization; Modal Logics; Proofs System and Proofs Search; Evolution, Termination and Decision Prolems. This is an open access book

Computer Aided Verification

The open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency