Search for: All records

Backward error analysisoffers a method for assessing the quality of numerical programs in the presence of floating-point rounding errors. However, techniques from the numerical analysis literature for quantifying backward error require substantial human effort, and there are currently no tools or automated methods for statically deriving sound backward error bounds. To address this gap, we propose Bean, a typed first-order programming language designed to express quantitative bounds on backward error. Bean’s type system combines a graded coeffect system with strict linearity to soundly track the flow of backward error through programs. We prove the soundness of our system using a novel categorical semantics, where every Bean program denotes a triple of related transformations that together satisfy a backward error guarantee. To illustrate Bean’s potential as a practical tool for automated backward error analysis, we implement a variety of standard algorithms from numerical linear algebra in Bean, establishing fine-grained backward error bounds via typing in a compositional style. We also develop a prototype implementation of Bean that infers backward error bounds automatically. Our evaluation shows that these inferred bounds match worst-case theoretical relative backward error bounds from the literature, underscoring Bean’s utility in validating a key property of numerical programs:numerical stability. 

Algorithms operating on real numbers are implemented as floating-point computations in practice, but floatingpoint operations introduceroundoff errorsthat can degrade the accuracy of the result. We propose ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathbf{num}}$, a functional programming language with a type system that can express quantitative bounds on roundoff error. Our type system combines a sensitivity analysis, enforced through a linear typing discipline, with a novel graded monad to track the accumulation of roundoff errors. We prove that our type system is sound by relating the denotational semantics of our language to the exact and floating-point operational semantics. To demonstrate our system, we instantiate ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathbf{num}}$with error metrics proposed in the numerical analysis literature and we show how to incorporate rounding operations that faithfully model aspects of the IEEE 754 floating-point standard. To show that ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathbf{num}}$can be a useful tool for automated error analysis, we develop a prototype implementation for ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathbf{num}}$that infers error bounds that are competitive with existing tools, while often running significantly faster. Finally, we consider semantic extensions of our graded monad to bound error under more complex rounding behaviors, such as non-deterministic and randomized rounding. 

The development of sound and efficient tools that automatically perform floating-point round-off error analysis is an active area of research with applications to embedded systems and scientific computing. In this paper we describe VCFloat2, a novel extension to the VCFloat tool for verifying floating-point C programs in Coq. Like VCFloat1, VCFloat2 soundly and automatically computes round-off error bounds on floating-point expressions, but does so to higher accuracy; with better performance; with more generality for nonstandard number formats; with the ability to reason about external (user-defined or library) functions; and with improved modularity for interfacing with other program verification tools in Coq. We evaluate the performance of VCFloat2 using common benchmarks; compared to other state-of-the art tools, VCFloat2 computes competitive error bounds and transparent certificates that require less time for verification. 

Intermediate verification languages like Why3 and Boogie have made it much easier to build program verifiers, transforming the process into a logic compilation problem rather than a proof automation one. Why3 in particular implements a rich logic for program specification with polymorphism, algebraic data types, recursive functions and predicates, and inductive predicates; it translates this logic to over a dozen solvers and proof assistants. Accordingly, it serves as a backend for many tools, including Frama-C, EasyCrypt, and GNATProve for Ada SPARK. But how can we be sure that these tools are correct? The alternate foundational approach, taken by tools like VST and CakeML, provides strong guarantees by implementing the entire toolchain in a proof assistant, but these tools are harder to build and cannot directly take advantage of SMT solver automation. As a first step toward enabling automated tools with similar foundational guarantees, we give a formal semantics in Coq for the logic fragment of Why3. We show that our semantics are useful by giving a correct-by-construction natural deduction proof system for this logic, using this proof system to verify parts of Why3’s standard library, and proving sound two of Why3’s transformations used to convert terms and formulas into the simpler logics supported by the backend solvers. 

Solving a sparse linear system of the form Ax = b is a common engineering task, e.g., as a step in approximating solutions of differential equations. Inverting a large matrix A is often too expensive, and instead engineers rely on iterative methods, which progressively approximate the solution x of the linear system in several iterations, where each iteration is a much less expensive (sparse) matrix-vector multiplication. We present a formal proof in the Coq proof assistant of the correctness, accuracy and convergence of one prominent iterative method, the Jacobi iteration. The accuracy and convergence properties of Jacobi iteration are well-studied, but most past analyses were performed in real arithmetic; instead, we study those properties, and prove our results, in floatingpoint arithmetic. We then show that our results are properly reflected in a concrete implementation in the C language. Finally, we show that the iteration will not overflow, under assumptions that we make explicit. Notably, our proofs are faithful to the details of the implementation, including C program semantics and floating-point arithmetic. 

The LAProof library provides formal machine-checked proofs of the accuracy of basic linear algebra operations: inner product using conventional multiply and add, inner product using fused multiply-add, scaled matrix-vector and matrix-matrix multiplication, and scaled vector and matrix addition. These proofs can connect to concrete implementations of low-level basic linear algebra subprograms; as a proof of concept we present a machine-checked correctness proof of a C function implementing sparse matrix-vector multiplication using the compressed sparse row format. Our accuracy proofs are backward error bounds and mixed backward-forward error bounds that account for underflow, proved subject to no assumptions except a low-level formal model of IEEE-754 arithmetic. We treat low-order error terms concretely, not approximating as O(u^2). 

C program components verified for functional correctness in Coq using VST (Verified Software Toolchain) can now rely on a set of standard library components (math functions, malloc/free, atomic load/store, locks, threads) that have formal specifications.