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

Formal Reasoning Using an Iterative Approach with an Integrated Web IDE

This paper summarizes our experience in communicating the elements of reasoning about correctness, and the central role of formal specifications in reasoning about modular, component-based software using a language and an integrated Web IDE designed for the purpose. Our experience in using such an IDE, supported by a 'push-button' verifying compiler in a classroom setting, reveals the highly iterative process learners use to arrive at suitably specified, automatically provable code. We explain how the IDE facilitates reasoning at each step of this process by providing human readable verification conditions (VCs) and feedback from an integrated prover that clearly indicates unprovable VCs to help identify obstacles to completing proofs. The paper discusses the IDE's usage in verified software development using several examples drawn from actual classroom lectures and student assignments to illustrate principles of design-by-contract and the iterative process of creating and subsequently refining assertions, such as loop invariants in object-based code.Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2015, arXiv:1508.0338

Specifying Reusable Components

Reusable software components need expressive specifications. This paper outlines a rigorous foundation to model-based contracts, a method to equip classes with strong contracts that support accurate design, implementation, and formal verification of reusable components. Model-based contracts conservatively extend the classic Design by Contract with a notion of model, which underpins the precise definitions of such concepts as abstract equivalence and specification completeness. Experiments applying model-based contracts to libraries of data structures suggest that the method enables accurate specification of practical software

Flexible Invariants Through Semantic Collaboration

Modular reasoning about class invariants is challenging in the presence of dependencies among collaborating objects that need to maintain global consistency. This paper presents semantic collaboration: a novel methodology to specify and reason about class invariants of sequential object-oriented programs, which models dependencies between collaborating objects by semantic means. Combined with a simple ownership mechanism and useful default schemes, semantic collaboration achieves the flexibility necessary to reason about complicated inter-object dependencies but requires limited annotation burden when applied to standard specification patterns. The methodology is implemented in AutoProof, our program verifier for the Eiffel programming language (but it is applicable to any language supporting some form of representation invariants). An evaluation on several challenge problems proposed in the literature demonstrates that it can handle a variety of idiomatic collaboration patterns, and is more widely applicable than the existing invariant methodologies.Comment: 22 page

A Failed Proof Can Yield a Useful Test

A successful automated program proof is, in software verification, the ultimate triumph. In practice, however, the road to such success is paved with many failed proof attempts. Unlike a failed test, which provides concrete evidence of an actual bug in the program, a failed proof leaves the programmer in the dark. Can we instead learn something useful from it? The work reported here takes advantage of the rich internal information that some automatic provers collect about the program when attempting a proof. If the proof fails, the Proof2Test tool presented in this article uses the counterexample generated by the prover (specifically, the SMT solver underlying the proof environment Boogie, used in the AutoProof system to perform correctness proofs of contract-equipped Eiffel programs) to produce a failed test, which provides the programmer with immediately exploitable information to correct the program. The discussion presents the Proof2Test tool and demonstrates the application of the ideas and tool to a collection of representative examples

Inferring Loop Invariants using Postconditions

One of the obstacles in automatic program proving is to obtain suitable loop invariants. The invariant of a loop is a weakened form of its postcondition (the loop's goal, also known as its contract); the present work takes advantage of this observation by using the postcondition as the basis for invariant inference, using various heuristics such as "uncoupling" which prove useful in many important algorithms. Thanks to these heuristics, the technique is able to infer invariants for a large variety of loop examples. We present the theory behind the technique, its implementation (freely available for download and currently relying on Microsoft Research's Boogie tool), and the results obtained.Comment: Slightly revised versio