An official website of the United States government
Automated verification can ensure that a web page satisfies accessibility, usability, and design properties regardless of the end user's device, preferences, and assistive technologies. However, state-of-the-art verification tools for layout properties do not scale to large pages because they rely on whole-page analyses and must reason about the entire page using the complex semantics of the browser layout algorithm. This paper introduces and formalizes modular layout proofs. A modular layout proof splits a monolithic verification problem into smaller verification problems, one for each component of a web page. Each component specification can use rely/guarantee-style preconditions to make it verifiable independently of the rest of the page and enabling reuse across multiple pages. Modular layout proofs scale verification to pages an order of magnitude larger than those supported by previous approaches. We prototyped these techniques in a new proof assistant, Troika. In Troika, a proof author partitions a page into components and writes specifications for them. Troika then verifies the specifications, and uses those specifications to verify whole-page properties. Troika also enables the proof author to verify different component specifications with different verification tools, leveraging the strengths of each. In a case study, we use Troika to verify a large web page and demonstrate a speed-up of 13--1469x over existing tools, taking verification time from hours to seconds. We develop a systematic approach to writing Troika proofs and demonstrate it on 8 proofs of properties from prior work to show that modular layout proofs are short, easy to write, and provide benefits over existing tools.
more »
« less
A Framework for Debugging Automated Program Verification Proofs via Proof Actions
Many program verification tools provide automation via SMT solvers, allowing them to automatically discharge many proofs. However, when a proof fails, it can be hard to understand why it failed or how to fix it. The main feedback the developer receives is simply the verification result (i.e., success or failure), with no visibility into the solver’s internal state. To assist developers using such tools, we introduce ProofPlumber, a novel and extensible proof-action framework for understanding and debugging proof failures. Proof actions act on the developer’s source-level proofs (e.g., assertions and lemmas) to determine why they failed and potentially suggest remedies. We evaluate ProofPlumber by writing a collection of proof actions that capture common proof debugging practices. We produce 17 proof actions, each only 29–177 lines of code.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2318954
- PAR ID:
- 10550145
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Montreal, Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Automated deductive program synthesis promises to generate executable programs from concise specifications, along with proofs of correctness that can be independently verified using third-party tools. However, an attempt to exercise this promise using existing proof-certification frameworks reveals significant discrepancies in how proof derivations are structured for two different purposes: program synthesis and program verification. These discrepancies make it difficult to use certified verifiers to validate synthesis results, forcing one to write an ad-hoc translation procedure from synthesis proofs to correctness proofs for each verification backend. In this work, we address this challenge in the context of the synthesis and verification of heap-manipulating programs. We present a technique for principled translation of deductive synthesis derivations (a.k.a. source proofs) into deductive target proofs about the synthesised programs in the logics of interactive program verifiers. We showcase our technique by implementing three different certifiers for programs generated via SuSLik, a Separation Logic-based tool for automated synthesis of programs with pointers, in foundational verification frameworks embedded in Coq: Hoare Type Theory (HTT), Iris, and Verified Software Toolchain (VST), producing concise and efficient machine-checkable proofs for characteristic synthesis benchmarks.more » « less
-
Formal verification is a promising method for producing reliable software, but the difficulty of manually writing verification proofs severely limits its utility in practice. Recent methods have automated some proof synthesis by guiding a search through the proof space using a theorem prover. Unfortunately, the theorem prover provides only the crudest estimate of progress, resulting in effectively undirected search. To address this problem, we create QEDCartographer, an automated proof-synthesis tool that combines supervised and reinforcement learning to more effectively explore the proof space. QEDCartographer incorporates the proofs' branching structure, enabling reward-free search and overcoming the sparse reward problem inherent to formal verification. We evaluate QEDCartographer using the CoqGym benchmark of 68.5K theorems from 124 open-source Coq projects. QEDCartographer fully automatically proves 21.4% of the test-set theorems. Previous search-based proof-synthesis tools Tok, Tac, ASTactic, Passport, and Proverbot9001, which rely only on supervised learning, prove 9.6%, 9.8%, 10.9%, 12.5%, and 19.8%, respectively. Diva, which combines 62 tools, proves 19.2%. Comparing to the most effective prior tool, Proverbot9001, QEDCartographer produces 26% shorter proofs 27% faster, on average over the theorems both tools prove. Together, QEDCartographer and non-learning-based CoqHammer prove 31.8% of the theorems, while CoqHammer alone proves 26.6%. Our work demonstrates that reinforcement learning is a fruitful research direction for improving proof-synthesis tools' search mechanisms.more » « less
-
Abstract This paper presents , a new intermediate verification language and deductive verification tool that provides inbuilt support for concurrency reasoning. ’s meta-theory is based on the higher-order concurrent separation logic Iris, incorporating core features such as user-definable ghost state and thread-modular reasoning via shared-state invariants. To achieve better accessibility and enable proof automation via SMT solvers, restricts Iris to its first-order fragment. The entailed loss of expressivity is mitigated by a higher-order module system that enables proof modularization and reuse. We provide an overview of the language and describe key aspects of the supported proof automation. We evaluate on a benchmark suite of verification tasks comprising linearizability and memory safety proofs for common concurrent data structures and clients as well as one larger case study. Our evaluation shows that improves over existing proof automation tools for Iris in terms of verification times and usability. Moreover, the tool significantly reduces the proof overhead compared to proofs constructed using the Iris/Rocq proof mode.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)We propose CheckDP, an automated and integrated approach for proving or disproving claims that a mechanism is differentially private. CheckDP can find counterexamples for mechanisms with subtle bugs for which prior counterexample generators have failed. Furthermore, it was able to automatically generate proofs for correct mechanisms for which no formal verification was reported before. CheckDP is built on static program analysis, allowing it to be more efficient and precise in catching infrequent events than sampling based counterexample generators (which run mechanisms hundreds of thousands of times to estimate their output distribution). Moreover, its sound approach also allows automatic verification of correct mechanisms. When evaluated on standard benchmarks and newer privacy mechanisms, CheckDP generates proofs (for correct mechanisms) and counterexamples (for incorrect mechanisms) within 70 seconds without any false positives or false negatives.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
