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

Computer-Assisted Program Reasoning Based on a Relational Semantics of Programs

We present an approach to program reasoning which inserts between a program and its verification conditions an additional layer, the denotation of the program expressed in a declarative form. The program is first translated into its denotation from which subsequently the verification conditions are generated. However, even before (and independently of) any verification attempt, one may investigate the denotation itself to get insight into the "semantic essence" of the program, in particular to see whether the denotation indeed gives reason to believe that the program has the expected behavior. Errors in the program and in the meta-information may thus be detected and fixed prior to actually performing the formal verification. More concretely, following the relational approach to program semantics, we model the effect of a program as a binary relation on program states. A formal calculus is devised to derive from a program a logic formula that describes this relation and is subject for inspection and manipulation. We have implemented this idea in a comprehensive form in the RISC ProgramExplorer, a new program reasoning environment for educational purposes which encompasses the previously developed RISC ProofNavigator as an interactive proving assistant.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Program Verification of Numerical Computation

These notes outline a formal method for program verification of numerical computation. It forms the basis of the software package VPC in its initial phase of development. Much of the style of presentation is in the form of notes that outline the definitions and rules upon which VPC is based. The initial motivation of this project was to address some practical issues of computation, especially of numerically intensive programs that are commonplace in computer models. The project evolved into a wider area for program construction as proofs leading to a model of inference in a more general sense. Some basic results of machine arithmetic are derived as a demonstration of VPC

Featherweight VeriFast

VeriFast is a leading research prototype tool for the sound modular verification of safety and correctness properties of single-threaded and multithreaded C and Java programs. It has been used as a vehicle for exploration and validation of novel program verification techniques and for industrial case studies; it has served well at a number of program verification competitions; and it has been used for teaching by multiple teachers independent of the authors. However, until now, while VeriFast's operation has been described informally in a number of publications, and specific verification techniques have been formalized, a clear and precise exposition of how VeriFast works has not yet appeared. In this article we present for the first time a formal definition and soundness proof of a core subset of the VeriFast program verification approach. The exposition aims to be both accessible and rigorous: the text is based on lecture notes for a graduate course on program verification, and it is backed by an executable machine-readable definition and machine-checked soundness proof in Coq

Meta-Level Inference and Program Verification

In [Bundy and Sterling 81] we described how meta-level inference was useful for controlling search and deriving control information in the domain of algebra. Similar techniques are applicable to the verification of logic programs. A developing meta-language is described, and an explicit proof plan using this language is given. A program, IMPRESS, is outlined which executes this plan

Graph Based Reduction of Program Verification Conditions

Increasing the automaticity of proofs in deductive verification of C programs is a challenging task. When applied to industrial C programs known heuristics to generate simpler verification conditions are not efficient enough. This is mainly due to their size and a high number of irrelevant hypotheses. This work presents a strategy to reduce program verification conditions by selecting their relevant hypotheses. The relevance of a hypothesis is determined by the combination of a syntactic analysis and two graph traversals. The first graph is labeled by constants and the second one by the predicates in the axioms. The approach is applied on a benchmark arising in industrial program verification

On the organisation of program verification competitions

In this paper, we discuss the challenges that have to be addressed when organising program verification competitions. Our focus is on competitions for verification systems where the participants both formalise an informally stated requirement and (typically) provide some guidance for the tool to show it. The paper draws its insights from our experiences with organising a program verification competition at FoVeOOS 2011. We discuss in particular the following aspects: challenge selection, on-site versus online organisation, team composition and judging. We conclude with a list of recommendations for future competition organisers