Search for: All records

Properties such as provable security and correctness for randomized programs are naturally expressed relationally as approximate equivalences. As a result, a number of relational program logics have been developed to reason about such approximate equivalences of probabilistic programs. However, existing approximate relational logics are mostly restricted to first-order programs without general state. In this paper we develop Approxis, a higher-order approximate relational separation logic for reasoning about approximate equivalence of programs written in an expressive ML-like language with discrete probabilistic sampling, higher-order functions, and higher-order state. The Approxis logic recasts the concept of error credits in the relational setting to reason about relational approximation, which allows for expressive notions of modularity and composition, a range of new approximate relational rules, and an internalization of a standard limiting argument for showing exact probabilistic equivalences by approximation. We also use Approxis to develop a logical relation model that quantifies over error credits, which can be used to prove exact contextual equivalence. We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach on a range of examples, including the PRP/PRF switching lemma, IND$-CPA security of an encryption scheme, and a collection of rejection samplers. All of the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant and the Iris separation logic framework. 

Almost-sure termination is an important correctness property for probabilistic programs, and a number of program logics have been developed for establishing it. However, these logics have mostly been developed for first-order programs written in languages with specific syntactic patterns for looping. In this paper, we consider almost-sure termination for higher-order probabilistic programs with general references. This combination of features allows for recursion and looping to be encoded through a variety of patterns. Therefore, rather than developing proof rules for reasoning about particular recursion patterns, we instead propose an approach based on proving refinement between a higher-order program and a simpler probabilistic model, in such a way that the refinement preserves termination behavior. By proving a refinement, almost-sure termination behavior of the program can then be established by analyzing the simpler model. We present this approach in the form of Caliper, a higher-order separation logic for proving termination-preserving refinements. Caliper uses probabilistic couplings to carry out relational reasoning between a program and a model. To handle the range of recursion patterns found in higher-order programs, Caliper uses guarded recursion, in particular the principle of Löb induction. A technical novelty is that Caliper does not require the use of transfinite step indexing or other technical restrictions found in prior work on guarded recursion for termination-preservation refinement. We demonstrate the flexibility of this approach by proving almost-sure termination of several examples, including first-order loop constructs, a random list generator, treaps, and a sampler for Galton-Watson trees that uses higher-order store. All the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant. 

Probabilistic programs often trade accuracy for efficiency, and thus may, with a small probability, return an incorrect result. It is important to obtain precise bounds for the probability of these errors, but existing verification approaches have limitations that lead to error probability bounds that are excessively coarse, or only apply to first-order programs. In this paper we present Eris, a higher-order separation logic for proving error probability bounds for probabilistic programs written in an expressive higher-order language. Our key novelty is the introduction of error credits, a separation logic resource that tracks an upper bound on the probability that a program returns an erroneous result. By representing error bounds as a resource, we recover the benefits of separation logic, including compositionality, modularity, and dependency between errors and program terms, allowing for more precise specifications. Moreover, we enable novel reasoning principles such as expectation-preserving error composition, amortized error reasoning, and error induction. We illustrate the advantages of our approach by proving amortized error bounds on a range of examples, including collision probabilities in hash functions, which allow us to write more modular specifications for data structures that use them as clients. We also use our logic to prove correctness and almost-sure termination of rejection sampling algorithms. All of our results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant using the Iris separation logic framework and the Coquelicot real analysis library. 

Probabilistic couplings are the foundation for many probabilistic relational program logics and arise when relating random sampling statements across two programs. In relational program logics, this manifests as dedicated coupling rules that, e.g., say we may reason as if two sampling statements return the same value. However, this approach fundamentally requires aligning or synchronizing the sampling statements of the two programs which is not always possible. In this paper, we develop Clutch, a higher-order probabilistic relational separation logic that addresses this issue by supporting asynchronous probabilistic couplings. We use Clutch to develop a logical step-indexed logical relation to reason about contextual refinement and equivalence of higher-order programs written in a rich language with a probabilistic choice operator, higher-order local state, and impredicative polymorphism. Finally, we demonstrate our approach on a number of case studies. All the results that appear in the paper have been formalized in the Coq proof assistant using the Coquelicot library and the Iris separation logic framework. 

Sensitivity properties describe how changes to the input of a program affect the output, typically by upper bounding the distance between the outputs of two runs by a monotone function of the distance between the corresponding inputs. When programs are probabilistic, the distance between outputs is a distance between distributions. The Kantorovich lifting provides a general way of defining a distance between distributions by lifting the distance of the underlying sample space; by choosing an appropriate distance on the base space, one can recover other usual probabilistic distances, such as the Total Variation distance. We develop a relational pre-expectation calculus to upper bound the Kantorovich distance between two executions of a probabilistic program. We illustrate our methods by proving algorithmic stability of a machine learning algorithm, convergence of a reinforcement learning algorithm, and fast mixing for card shuffling algorithms. We also consider some extensions: using our calculus to show convergence of Markov chains to the uniform distribution over states and an asynchronous extension to reason about pairs of program executions with different control flow. 

Adversarial computations are a widely studied class of computations where resource-bounded probabilistic adversaries have access to oracles, i.e., probabilistic procedures with private state. These computations arise routinely in several domains, including security, privacy and machine learning. In this paper, we develop program logics for reasoning about adversarial computations in a higher-order setting. Our logics are built on top of a simply typed λ-calculus extended with a graded monad for probabilities and state. The grading is used to model and restrict the memory footprint and the cost (in terms of oracle calls) of computations. Under this view, an adversary is a higher-order expression that expects as arguments the code of its oracles. We develop unary program logics for reasoning about error probabilities and expected values, and a relational logic for reasoning about coupling-based properties. All logics feature rules for adversarial computations, and yield guarantees that are valid for all adversaries that satisfy a fixed resource policy. We prove the soundness of the logics in the category of quasi-Borel spaces, using a general notion of graded predicate liftings, and we use logical relations over graded predicate liftings to establish the soundness of proof rules for adversaries. We illustrate the working of our logics with simple but illustrative examples.