Proving Correctness and Completeness of Normal Programs - a Declarative Approach

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics which may be of separate interest. The presented methods are compared with an approach based on operational semantics. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). 44 page

Modular termination verification for non-blocking concurrency

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016.We present Total-TaDA, a program logic for verifying the total correctness of concurrent programs: that such programs both terminate and produce the correct result. With Total-TaDA, we can specify constraints on a thread’s concurrent environment that are necessary to guarantee termination. This allows us to verify total correctness for nonblocking algorithms, e.g. a counter and a stack. Our specifications can express lock- and wait-freedom. More generally, they can express that one operation cannot impede the progress of another, a new non-blocking property we call non-impedance. Moreover, our approach is modular. We can verify the operations of a module independently, and build up modules on top of each other

Reasoning with time and data abstractions

In this thesis, we address the problem of verifying the functional correctness of concurrent programs, with emphasis on fine-grained concurrent data structures. Reasoning about such programs is challenging since data can be concurrently accessed by multiple threads: the reasoning must account for the interference between threads, which is often subtle. To reason about interference, concurrent operations should either be at distinct times or on distinct data. We present TaDA, a sound program logic for verifying clients and implementations that use abstract specifications that incorporate both abstract atomicity—the abstraction that operations take effect at a single, discrete instant in time—and abstract disjointness—the abstraction that operations act on distinct data resources. Our key contribution is the introduction of atomic triples, which offer an expressive approach for specifying program modules. We also present Total-TaDA, a sound extension of TaDA with which we can verify total correctness of concurrent programs, i.e. that such programs both produce the correct result and terminate. With Total-TaDA, we can specify constraints on a thread’s concurrent environment that are necessary to guarantee termination. This allows us to verify total correctness for nonblocking algorithms and express lock- and wait-freedom. More generally, the abstract specifications can express that one operation cannot impede the progress of another, a new non-blocking property that we call non-impedance. Finally, we describe how to extend TaDA for proving abstract atomicity for data structures that make use of helping—where one thread is performing an abstract operation on behalf of another—and speculation—where an abstract operation is determined by future behaviour.Open Acces

Size-Change Termination as a Contract

Termination is an important but undecidable program property, which has led to a large body of work on static methods for conservatively predicting or enforcing termination. One such method is the size-change termination approach of Lee, Jones, and Ben-Amram, which operates in two phases: (1) abstract programs into "size-change graphs," and (2) check these graphs for the size-change property: the existence of paths that lead to infinite decreasing sequences. We transpose these two phases with an operational semantics that accounts for the run-time enforcement of the size-change property, postponing (or entirely avoiding) program abstraction. This choice has two key consequences: (1) size-change termination can be checked at run-time and (2) termination can be rephrased as a safety property analyzed using existing methods for systematic abstraction. We formulate run-time size-change checks as contracts in the style of Findler and Felleisen. The result compliments existing contracts that enforce partial correctness specifications to obtain contracts for total correctness. Our approach combines the robustness of the size-change principle for termination with the precise information available at run-time. It has tunable overhead and can check for nontermination without the conservativeness necessary in static checking. To obtain a sound and computable termination analysis, we apply existing abstract interpretation techniques directly to the operational semantics, avoiding the need for custom abstractions for termination. The resulting analyzer is competitive with with existing, purpose-built analyzers

The AutoProof Verifier: Usability by Non-Experts and on Standard Code

Formal verification tools are often developed by experts for experts; as a result, their usability by programmers with little formal methods experience may be severely limited. In this paper, we discuss this general phenomenon with reference to AutoProof: a tool that can verify the full functional correctness of object-oriented software. In particular, we present our experiences of using AutoProof in two contrasting contexts representative of non-expert usage. First, we discuss its usability by students in a graduate course on software verification, who were tasked with verifying implementations of various sorting algorithms. Second, we evaluate its usability in verifying code developed for programming assignments of an undergraduate course. The first scenario represents usability by serious non-experts; the second represents usability on "standard code", developed without full functional verification in mind. We report our experiences and lessons learnt, from which we derive some general suggestions for furthering the development of verification tools with respect to improving their usability.Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2015, arXiv:1508.0338

Program Derivation by Correctness Enhacements

Relative correctness is the property of a program to be more-correct than another program with respect to a given specification. Among the many properties of relative correctness, that which we found most intriguing is the property that program P' refines program P if and only if P' is more-correct than P with respect to any specification. This inspires us to reconsider program derivation by successive refinements: each step of this process mandates that we transform a program P into a program P' that refines P, i.e. P' is more-correct than P with respect to any specification. This raises the question: why should we want to make P' more-correct than P with respect to any specification, when we only have to satisfy specification R? In this paper, we discuss a process of program derivation that replaces traditional sequence of refinement-based correctness-preserving transformations starting from specification R by a sequence of relative correctness-based correctness-enhancing transformations starting from abort.Comment: In Proceedings Refine'15, arXiv:1606.0134

On a New Notion of Partial Refinement

Formal specification techniques allow expressing idealized specifications, which abstract from restrictions that may arise in implementations. However, partial implementations are universal in software development due to practical limitations. Our goal is to contribute to a method of program refinement that allows for partial implementations. For programs with a normal and an exceptional exit, we propose a new notion of partial refinement which allows an implementation to terminate exceptionally if the desired results cannot be achieved, provided the initial state is maintained. Partial refinement leads to a systematic method of developing programs with exception handling.Comment: In Proceedings Refine 2013, arXiv:1305.563

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