Trusting Computations: a Mechanized Proof from Partial Differential Equations to Actual Program

Computer programs may go wrong due to exceptional behaviors, out-of-bound array accesses, or simply coding errors. Thus, they cannot be blindly trusted. Scientific computing programs make no exception in that respect, and even bring specific accuracy issues due to their massive use of floating-point computations. Yet, it is uncommon to guarantee their correctness. Indeed, we had to extend existing methods and tools for proving the correct behavior of programs to verify an existing numerical analysis program. This C program implements the second-order centered finite difference explicit scheme for solving the 1D wave equation. In fact, we have gone much further as we have mechanically verified the convergence of the numerical scheme in order to get a complete formal proof covering all aspects from partial differential equations to actual numerical results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time such a comprehensive proof is achieved.Comment: N° RR-8197 (2012). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1112.179

On formal verification of arithmetic-based cryptographic primitives

Cryptographic primitives are fundamental for information security: they are used as basic components for cryptographic protocols or public-key cryptosystems. In many cases, their security proofs consist in showing that they are reducible to computationally hard problems. Those reductions can be subtle and tedious, and thus not easily checkable. On top of the proof assistant Coq, we had implemented in previous work a toolbox for writing and checking game-based security proofs of cryptographic primitives. In this paper we describe its extension with number-theoretic capabilities so that it is now possible to write and check arithmetic-based cryptographic primitives in our toolbox. We illustrate our work by machine checking the game-based proofs of unpredictability of the pseudo-random bit generator of Blum, Blum and Shub, and semantic security of the public-key cryptographic scheme of Goldwasser and Micali.Comment: 13 page

FoCaLiZe: Inside an F-IDE

For years, Integrated Development Environments have demonstrated their usefulness in order to ease the development of software. High-level security or safety systems require proofs of compliance to standards, based on analyses such as code review and, increasingly nowadays, formal proofs of conformance to specifications. This implies mixing computational and logical aspects all along the development, which naturally raises the need for a notion of Formal IDE. This paper examines the FoCaLiZe environment and explores the implementation issues raised by the decision to provide a single language to express specification properties, source code and machine-checked proofs while allowing incremental development and code reusability. Such features create strong dependencies between functions, properties and proofs, and impose an particular compilation scheme, which is described here. The compilation results are runnable OCaml code and a checkable Coq term. All these points are illustrated through a running example.Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2014, arXiv:1404.578

Automated Generation of User Guidance by Combining Computation and Deduction

Herewith, a fairly old concept is published for the first time and named "Lucas Interpretation". This has been implemented in a prototype, which has been proved useful in educational practice and has gained academic relevance with an emerging generation of educational mathematics assistants (EMA) based on Computer Theorem Proving (CTP). Automated Theorem Proving (ATP), i.e. deduction, is the most reliable technology used to check user input. However ATP is inherently weak in automatically generating solutions for arbitrary problems in applied mathematics. This weakness is crucial for EMAs: when ATP checks user input as incorrect and the learner gets stuck then the system should be able to suggest possible next steps. The key idea of Lucas Interpretation is to compute the steps of a calculation following a program written in a novel CTP-based programming language, i.e. computation provides the next steps. User guidance is generated by combining deduction and computation: the latter is performed by a specific language interpreter, which works like a debugger and hands over control to the learner at breakpoints, i.e. tactics generating the steps of calculation. The interpreter also builds up logical contexts providing ATP with the data required for checking user input, thus combining computation and deduction. The paper describes the concepts underlying Lucas Interpretation so that open questions can adequately be addressed, and prerequisites for further work are provided.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453