Functional programming languages for verification tools: experiences with ML and Haskell

We compare Haskell with ML as programming languages for verification tools, based on our experience developing TRUTH in Haskell and the Edinburgh Concurrency Workbench (CWB) in ML. We discuss not only technical language features but also the "worlds" of the languages, for example, the availability of tools and libraries

Why Just Boogie? Translating Between Intermediate Verification Languages

The verification systems Boogie and Why3 use their respective intermediate languages to generate verification conditions from high-level programs. Since the two systems support different back-end provers (such as Z3 and Alt-Ergo) and are used to encode different high-level languages (such as C# and Java), being able to translate between their intermediate languages would provide a way to reuse one system's features to verify programs meant for the other. This paper describes a translation of Boogie into WhyML (Why3's intermediate language) that preserves semantics, verifiability, and program structure to a large degree. We implemented the translation as a tool and applied it to 194 Boogie-verified programs of various sources and sizes; Why3 verified 83% of the translated programs with the same outcome as Boogie. These results indicate that the translation is often effective and practically applicable

Verifying proofs in constant depth

In this paper we initiate the study of proof systems where verification of proofs proceeds by NC circuits. We investigate the question which languages admit proof systems in this very restricted model. Formulated alternatively, we ask which languages can be enumerated by NC functions. Our results show that the answer to this problem is not determined by the complexity of the language. On the one hand, we construct NC proof systems for a variety of languages ranging from regular to NP-complete. On the other hand, we show by combinatorial methods that even easy regular languages such as Exact-OR do not admit NC proof systems. We also present a general construction of proof systems for regular languages with strongly connected NFA's

Formal Model Engineering for Embedded Systems Using Real-Time Maude

This paper motivates why Real-Time Maude should be well suited to provide a formal semantics and formal analysis capabilities to modeling languages for embedded systems. One can then use the code generation facilities of the tools for the modeling languages to automatically synthesize Real-Time Maude verification models from design models, enabling a formal model engineering process that combines the convenience of modeling using an informal but intuitive modeling language with formal verification. We give a brief overview six fairly different modeling formalisms for which Real-Time Maude has provided the formal semantics and (possibly) formal analysis. These models include behavioral subsets of the avionics modeling standard AADL, Ptolemy II discrete-event models, two EMF-based timed model transformation systems, and a modeling language for handset software.Comment: In Proceedings AMMSE 2011, arXiv:1106.596