12,766 research outputs found
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
TRX: A Formally Verified Parser Interpreter
Parsing is an important problem in computer science and yet surprisingly
little attention has been devoted to its formal verification. In this paper, we
present TRX: a parser interpreter formally developed in the proof assistant
Coq, capable of producing formally correct parsers. We are using parsing
expression grammars (PEGs), a formalism essentially representing recursive
descent parsing, which we consider an attractive alternative to context-free
grammars (CFGs). From this formalization we can extract a parser for an
arbitrary PEG grammar with the warranty of total correctness, i.e., the
resulting parser is terminating and correct with respect to its grammar and the
semantics of PEGs; both properties formally proven in Coq.Comment: 26 pages, LMC
Mechanized semantics
The goal of this lecture is to show how modern theorem provers---in this
case, the Coq proof assistant---can be used to mechanize the specification of
programming languages and their semantics, and to reason over individual
programs and over generic program transformations, as typically found in
compilers. The topics covered include: operational semantics (small-step,
big-step, definitional interpreters); a simple form of denotational semantics;
axiomatic semantics and Hoare logic; generation of verification conditions,
with application to program proof; compilation to virtual machine code and its
proof of correctness; an example of an optimizing program transformation (dead
code elimination) and its proof of correctness
Programming Not Only by Example
In recent years, there has been tremendous progress in automated synthesis
techniques that are able to automatically generate code based on some intent
expressed by the programmer. A major challenge for the adoption of synthesis
remains in having the programmer communicate their intent. When the expressed
intent is coarse-grained (for example, restriction on the expected type of an
expression), the synthesizer often produces a long list of results for the
programmer to choose from, shifting the heavy-lifting to the user. An
alternative approach, successfully used in end-user synthesis is programming by
example (PBE), where the user leverages examples to interactively and
iteratively refine the intent. However, using only examples is not expressive
enough for programmers, who can observe the generated program and refine the
intent by directly relating to parts of the generated program.
We present a novel approach to interacting with a synthesizer using a
granular interaction model. Our approach employs a rich interaction model where
(i) the synthesizer decorates a candidate program with debug information that
assists in understanding the program and identifying good or bad parts, and
(ii) the user is allowed to provide feedback not only on the expected output of
a program, but also on the underlying program itself. That is, when the user
identifies a program as (partially) correct or incorrect, they can also
explicitly indicate the good or bad parts, to allow the synthesizer to accept
or discard parts of the program instead of discarding the program as a whole.
We show the value of our approach in a controlled user study. Our study shows
that participants have strong preference to using granular feedback instead of
examples, and are able to provide granular feedback much faster
- …