In the context of probabilistic programs, an oblivious adversary resolves nondeterminism without seeing the outcomes of random draws. Obliviousness is a common assumption in online algorithms and distributed protocols, but the complex interaction between random draws and adversarial choices makes it challenging to reason about correctness. While there has been significant progress toward reasoning about programs that combine randomization with nondeterminism, most of the work has focused on the adaptive model, whose omniscient view of program state is too powerful to establish correctness for certain classes of programs. We introduce Oblivious Probabilistic Outcome Logic (opOL), a new logic for reasoning about probabilistic programs with nondeterminism controlled by an oblivious adversary. Building on Outcome Logic and Probabilistic Separation Logic, opOL models adversarial choice as a resource and uses probabilistic independence to ensure that random outcomes are hidden from the adversary. The opOL proof system provides expressive and compositional rules for case analysis on both random and nondeterministic outcomes, and for proving almost-sure termination. Expressivity is tested through several case studies, including a paging algorithm and a leader election protocol. The opOL metatheory and case studies are mechanized in Lean 4.

Modern databases are highly concurrent and provide transactions as a mean of grouping several database operations into atomically applied units. Database vendors and software engineers use isolation levels to describe the consistency guarantees of transactions. The popular isolation levels give weak guarantees, with intricate semantics, to optimize performance of applications. The problem of assuring that database implementations actually implement the isolation level guarantees that application developers build their systems upon has received a great deal of attention from the testing community. But until now, there exists no method for formally verifying that a database implementation actually implements the isolation level that database vendors says it provides. In this paper, we present a method for verifying that a database implements an isolation level: we derive isolation levels directly, as formalized in transactional consistency models by the database community, from the structure of separation logic specifications. By doing so, we consider all program executions that a database and arbitrary clients of the database could produce. The result is a so-called free theorem meaning that any database implementation, whose operations are verified against a specific set of separation logic specifications, actually implements its isolation level. As all proofs in this paper are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant and build upon a detailed semantic model of program execution, we believe this contribution raises the bar for the achievable robustness of databases.

We present a new ML-like programming language Yarrow with algebraic effects and region-based memory management. Reconciling these programming language features into one language is challenging: the non-local control flow of algebraic effects break the stack discipline of function calls and returns that region-based memory management relies on, and multi-shot effect handlers break the invariant that regions can be exited at most once. We present a program logic, called Yarrow Logic (YL), that supports safe and modular reasoning about regions in the presence of one-shot and multi-shot effect handlers. We prove the logic sound w.r.t. the operational semantics of Yarrow which is inspired by the runtime of OCaml but refined for regions. We use YL to prove correctness of a number of case studies with algebraic effects, including checkpointing, asynchronous computation and a LIFO data structure implementation. Since all memory locations used in these case studies are allocated in regions, these case studies avoid using the less efficient garbage collected heap memory. We have formalized Yarrow’s operational semantics, the Yarrow program logic, and all our case studies using the Iris separation logic framework on top of the Rocq Prover.

We present Foxtrot, the first higher-order separation logic for proving contextual refinement of higherorder concurrent probabilistic programs with higher-order local state. From a high level, Foxtrot inherits various concurrency reasoning principles from standard concurrent separation logic, e.g. invariants and ghost resources, and supports advanced probabilistic reasoning principles for reasoning about complex probability distributions induced by concurrent threads, e.g. tape presampling and induction by error amplification. The integration of these strong reasoning principles is highly non-trivial due to the combination of probability and concurrency in the language and the complexity of the Foxtrot model; the soundness of the logic relies on a version of the axiom of choice within the Iris logic, which is not used in earlier work on Iris-based logics. We demonstrate the expressiveness of Foxtrot on a wide range of examples, including the adversarial von Neumann coin and the randombytes_uniform function of the Sodium cryptography software library. All results have been mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant and the Iris separation logic framework.

Mixed choice multiparty message passing is an expressive concurrency programming paradigm where components use non-determinism to choose between concurrent options for sending and receiving messages. This flexibility makes it possible to program advanced algorithms, such as leader election protocols, succinctly. We present Mixtris, a mechanised higher-order separation logic for reasoning about functional correctness of higher-order imperative programs with mixed choice multiparty message passing in a shared memory setting. Mixtris builds upon recent work on separation logic for (non-mixed choice) multiparty message-passing programs, by drawing inspiration from session type systems for mixed choice multiparty message-passing programs. Mixtris is the first program logic for mixed choice multiparty message passing. We prove soundness of Mixtris using a novel model of our mixed choice multiparty protocols. We demonstrate how Mixtris can be used to formally reason about challenging examples, including some leader election protocols such as Chang and Roberts’s ring leader election protocol. All the results in the paper (both meta-theory and examples) have been formalised in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris program logic framework.

Higher-order concurrent separation logics, such as Iris, have been tremendously successful in verifying safety properties of concurrent programs. However, state-of-the-art attempts to verify liveness properties in such logics have so far either lacked modularity (the ability to compose specifications of independent modules), or they have been far too complex to mechanize in a proof assistant. In this work, we introduce Lawyer — a mechanized program logic for modular verification of (fair) termination of concurrent programs. Lawyer draws inspiration from state-of-the-art approaches that use obligations for specifying and proving termination. However, unlike these approaches, which incorporate obligations by instrumenting the source code with erasable auxiliary code and state, Lawyer avoids such instrumentations. Instead, Lawyer incorporates obligations into the logic by embedding them into a purely logical labeled transition system that the program is shown to refine — this makes Lawyer far more amenable to mechanization. We demonstrate the expressivity of Lawyer by verifying termination of a range of examples, including modular verification of a client program whose termination relies on correctness of a fair lock library, and (separately) proving that a ticket lock implementation implements that library’s interface. To the best of our knowledge, Lawyer is the first mechanized program logic that supports modular higher-order impredicative liveness specifications of program modules. All the results that appear in the paper have been mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.

Very relaxed concurrency memory models, like those of the Arm-A, RISC-V and IBM Power hardware architectures, underpin much of computing but break a fundamental intuition about programs, namely that syntactic program order and the reads-from relation always both induce order in the execution. Instead, out-of-order execution is allowed except where prevented by certain pairwise dependencies, barriers, or other synchronisation. This means that there is no notion of the ‘current’ state of the program, making it challenging to design (and prove sound) syntax-directed, modular reasoning methods like Hoare logics, as usable resources cannot implicitly flow from one program point to the next. We present AxSL, a family of separation logics for relaxed hardware memory models, and instantiate it on sequential consistency and on the Arm-A memory model. The Arm-A instance captures the fine-grained reasoning underpinning the low-overhead synchronisation idioms used by high-performance systems code. We mechanise AxSL in the Iris separation logic framework, illustrate it on key examples, and prove it sound with respect to the axiomatic memory model of Arm-A. By instantiating AxSL on different memory models, we demonstrate the generality of our approach, and show that it is largely generic in the axiomatic model and in the instruction-set semantics, offering a potential way forward for compositional reasoning for other models, and for the combination of production concurrency models and full-scale ISAs.

Although randomization has long been used in distributed computing, formal methods for reasoning aboutprobabilistic concurrent programs have lagged behind. No existing program logics can express specificationsabout the full distributions of outcomes resulting from programs that are both probabilistic and concurrent. To address this, we introduce Probabilistic Concurrent Outcome Logic ( pcOL ), which incorporates ideas fromconcurrent and probabilistic separation logics into Outcome Logic to introduce new compositional reasoningprinciples. At its core, pcOL reinterprets the rules of Concurrent Separation Logic in a setting where separationmodels probabilistic independence, so as to compositionally describe joint distributions over variables inconcurrent threads. Reasoning about outcomes also proves crucial, as case analysis is often necessary to deriveprecise information about threads that rely on randomized shared state. We demonstrate pcOL on a variety ofexamples, including to prove almost sure termination of unbounded loops.

Wait-freedom is the strongest non-blocking progress guarantee for concurrent data structures, ensuring that every operation completes in a finite number of steps regardless of interference from other threads. While verification of wait-freedom has been studied for first-order languages, verifying it for higher-order programming languages with general references remains an open challenge. In such languages, operations may be used by arbitrary, unverified higher-order clients, making it unclear how to even define wait-freedom formally in terms of programs’ semantics, let alone prove it. In this paper, we present the first framework for verifying wait-freedom of concurrent programs written in a higher-order language with general references. Our approach is based on the Lawyer concurrent separation logic which has been recently introduced for termination verification. We identify a specification pattern in the Lawyer logic that captures wait-freedom. To establish this connection formally, we prove a novel adequacy theorem for Lawyer which states that programs which are proven correct in the Lawyer logic against a specification in the aforementioned specification pattern are wait-free. Proving wait-freedom requires to show that all calls made to operations by any arbitrary client terminate. Thus, as a part of proving the adequacy theorem above, we need to prove that the behavior of the client of the data structure is safe in the sense that it does not break the internal invariants of the data structure, e.g., by directly manipulating the data structure’s internal state. To this end, we develop a logical relations model that establishes safety for all clients once and for all. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by proving wait-freedom for several representative examples, including a higher-order list map function, and a memory-efficient single-producer, single-consumer queue. For the latter, wait-freedom is conditional in that, as the name suggests, there can be at most one enqueuer thread and one dequeuer thread. To capture this formally, we introduce the notion of restricted wait-freedom as a variant of wait-freedom that restricts the number of concurrent threads, and show how our approach can support reasoning about restricted wait-freedom. All our results have been mechanized on top of the Rocq Prover and using the Iris separation logic framework that Lawyer is also based on.

Consistency guarantees among concurrently executing transactions in local- and distributed systems, commonly referred to as isolation levels, have been formalized in a number of models. Thus far, no model can reason about executable implementations of databases or local transaction libraries providing weak isolation levels. Weak isolation levels are characterized by being highly concurrent and, unlike their stronger counter part serializability, they are not equivalent to the consistency guarantees provided by a transaction library implemented using a global lock. Industrial-strength databases almost exclusively implement weak isolation levels as their default level. This calls for formalism as numerous bugs violating isolation have been detected in these databases. In this paper, we formalize three weak isolation levels in separation logic, namely read uncommitted, read committed, and snapshot isolation. We define modular separation logic specifications that are independent of the underlying transaction library implementation. Historically, isolation levels have been specified using examples of executions between concurrent transactions that are not allowed to occur, and we demonstrate that our specifications correctly prohibit such examples. To show that our specifications are realizable, we formally verify that an executable implementation of a key-value database running the multi-version concurrency control algorithm from the original snapshot isolation paper satisfies our specification of snapshot isolation. Moreover, we prove implications between the specifications—snapshot isolation implies read committed and read committed implies read uncommitted—and thus the verification effort of the database serves as proof that all of our specifications are realizable. All results are mechanized in the Rocq proof assistant on top of the Iris separation logic framework.

We present Coneris, the first higher-order concurrent separation logic for reasoning about error probability bounds of higher-order concurrent probabilistic programs with higher-order state. To support modular reasoning about concurrent (non-probabilistic) program modules, state-of-the-art program logics internalize the classic notion of linearizability within the logic through the concept of logical atomicity . In Coneris, we extend this idea to probabilistic concurrent program modules by capturing a novel notion of randomized logical atomicity within the logic. To do so, Coneris utilizes presampling tapes and a novel probabilistic update modality to describe how state is changed probabilistically at linearization points. We demonstrate this approach by means of smaller synthetic examples and larger case studies. All of the presented results, including the meta-theory, have been mechanized in the Rocq prover and the Iris separation logic framework.

Programs increasingly rely on randomization in applications such as cryptography and machine learning. Analyzing randomized programs has been a fruitful research direction, but there is a gap when programs also exploit nondeterminism(for concurrency, efficiency, or algorithmic design). In this paper, we introduce Demonic Outcome Logic for reasoning about programs that exploit both randomization and nondeterminism. The logic includes several novel features, such as reasoning about multiple executions in tandem and manipulating pre- and postconditions using familiar equational laws—including the distributive law of probabilistic choices over nondeterministic ones. We also give rules for loops that both establish termination and quantify the distribution of final outcomes from a single premise. We illustrate the reasoning capabilities of Demonic Outcome Logic through several case studies, including the Monty Hall problem, an adversarial protocol for simulating fair coins, and a heuristic based probabilistic SAT solver.

Ordered, linear, and other substructural type systems allow us to expose deep properties of programs at the syntactic level of types. In this paper, we develop a family of unary logical relations that allow us to prove consequences of parametricity for a range of substructural type systems. A key idea is to parameterize the relation by an algebra, which we exemplify with a monoid and commutative monoid to interpret ordered and linear type systems, respectively. We prove the fundamental theorem of logical relations and apply it to deduce extensional properties of inhabitants of certain types. Examples include demonstrating that the ordered types for list append and reversal are inhabited by exactly one function, as are types of some tree traversals. Similarly, the linear type of the identity function on lists is inhabited only by permutations of the input. Our most advanced example shows that the ordered type of the list fold function is inhabited only by the fold function.

Type soundness, which asserts that “well-typed programs cannot go wrong,” is widely viewed as the canonical theorem one must prove to establish that a type system is doing its job. It is commonly proved using the so-called syntactic approach (also known as progress and preservation ), which has had a huge impact on the study and teaching of programming language foundations. Unfortunately, syntactic type soundness is a rather weak theorem. It only applies to programs that are well typed in their entirety and thus tells us nothing about the many programs written in “safe” languages that make use of “unsafe” language features. Even worse, it tells us nothing about whether type systems achieve one of their main goals: enforcement of data abstraction. One can easily define a language that enjoys syntactic type soundness and yet fails to support even the most basic modular reasoning principles for abstraction mechanisms like closures, objects, and abstract data types. Given these concerns, we argue that programming languages researchers should no longer be satisfied with proving syntactic type soundness and should instead start proving semantic type soundness , a more useful theorem that captures more accurately what type systems are actually good for. Semantic type soundness is an old idea—Milner’s original account of type soundness from 1978 was semantic—but it fell out of favor in the 1990s due to limitations and complexities of denotational models. In the succeeding decades, thanks to a series of technical advances—notably, step-indexed Kripke logical relations constructed over operational semantics and higher-order concurrent separation logic as consolidated in the Iris framework in Coq—we can now build (machine-checked) semantic soundness proofs at a much higher level of abstraction than was previously possible. The resulting “logical” approach to semantic type soundness has already been employed to great effect in a number of recent papers, but those papers typically (a) concern advanced problem scenarios that complicate the presentation, (b) assume significant prior knowledge of the reader, and (c) suppress many details of the proofs. Here, we aim to provide a gentler, more pedagogically motivated introduction to logical type soundness, targeted at a broader audience that may or may not be familiar with logical relations and Iris. As a bonus, we also show how logical type soundness proofs can easily be generalized to establish an even stronger relational property— representation independence —for realistic type systems.

We present Tachis, a higher-order separation logic to reason about the expected cost of probabilistic programs. Inspired by the uses of time credits for reasoning about the running time of deterministic programs, we introduce a novel notion of probabilistic cost credit. Probabilistic cost credits are a separation logic resource that can be used to pay for the cost of operations in programs, and that can be distributed across all possible branches of sampling instructions according to their weight, thus enabling us to reason about expected cost. The representation of cost credits as separation logic resources gives Tachis a great deal of flexibility and expressivity. In particular, it permits reasoning about amortized expected cost by storing excess credits as potential into data structures to pay for future operations. Tachis further supports a range of cost models, including running time and entropy usage. We showcase the versatility of this approach by applying our techniques to prove upper bounds on the expected cost of a variety of probabilistic algorithms and data structures, including randomized quicksort, hash tables, and meldable heaps. All of our results have been mechanized using Coq, Iris, and the Coquelicot real analysis library.

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.

We present guarded interaction trees — a structure and a fully formalized framework for representing higherorder computations with higher-order effects in Coq, inspired by domain theory and the recently proposed interaction trees. We also present an accompanying separation logic for reasoning about guarded interaction trees. To demonstrate that guarded interaction trees provide a convenient domain for interpreting higher-order languages with effects, we define an interpretation of a PCF-like language with effects and show that this interpretation is sound and computationally adequate; we prove the latter using a logical relation defined using the separation logic. Guarded interaction trees also allow us to combine different effects and reason about them modularly. To illustrate this point, we give a modular proof of type soundness of cross-language interactions for safe interoperability of different higher-order languages with different effects. All results in the paper are formalized in Coq using the Iris logic over guarded type theory.

Expressive state-of-the-art separation logics rely on step-indexing to model semantically complex features and to support modular reasoning about imperative higher-order concurrent and distributed programs. Stepindexing comes, however, with an inherent cost: it restricts the adequacy theorem of program logics to a fairly simple class of safety properties. In this paper, we explore if and how intensional refinement is a viable methodology for strengthening higher-order concurrent (and distributed) separation logic to prove non-trivial safety and liveness properties. Specifically, we introduce Trillium, a language-agnostic separation logic framework for showing intensional refinement relations between traces of a program and a model. We instantiate Trillium with a concurrent language and develop Fairis, a concurrent separation logic, that we use to show liveness properties of concurrent programs under fair scheduling assumptions through a fair liveness-preserving refinement of a model. We also instantiate Trillium with a distributed language and obtain an extension of Aneris, a distributed separation logic, which we use to show refinement relations between distributed systems and TLA + models.

Guaranteeing correct compilation is nearly synonymous with compiler verification. However, the correctness guarantees for certified compilers and translation validation can be stronger than we need. While many compilers do have incorrect behavior, even when a compiler bug occurs it may not change the program’s behavior meaningfully with respect to its specification. Many real-world specifications are necessarily partial in that they do not completely specify all of a program’s behavior. While compiler verification and formal methods have had great success for safety-critical systems, there are magnitudes more code, such as math libraries, compiled with incorrect compilers, that would benefit from a guarantee of its partial specification. This paper explores a technique to get guarantees about compiled programs even in the presence of an unverified, or even incorrect, compiler. Our workflow compiles programs, specifications, and proof objects, from an embedded source language and logic to an embedded target language and logic. We implement two simple imperative languages, each with its own Hoare-style program logic, and a system for instantiating proof compilers out of compilers between these two languages that fulfill certain equational conditions in Coq. We instantiate our system on four compilers: one that is incomplete, two that are incorrect, and one that is correct but unverified. We use these instances to compile Hoare proofs for several programs, and we are able to leverage compiled proofs to assist in proofs of larger programs. Our proof compiler system is formally proven sound in Coq. We demonstrate how our approach enables strong target program guarantees even in the presence of incorrect compilation, opening up new options for which proof burdens one might shoulder instead of, or in addition to, compiler correctness.

Grove is a concurrent separation logic library for verifying distributed systems. Grove is the first to handle time-based leases, including their interaction with reconfiguration, crash recovery, thread-level concurrency, and unreliable networks. This paper uses Grove to verify several distributed system components written in Go, including vKV, a realistic distributed multi-threaded key-value store. vKV supports reconfiguration, primary/backup replication, and crash recovery, and uses leases to execute read-only requests on any replica. vKV achieves high performance (67–73% of Redis on a single core), scales with more cores and more backup replicas (achieving about 2× the throughput when going from 1 to 3 servers), and can safely execute reads while reconfiguring.

In concurrent verification, separation logic provides a strong story for handling both resources that are owned exclusively and resources that are shared persistently (i.e., forever). However, the situation is more complicated for temporarily shared state, where state might be shared and then later reclaimed as exclusive. We believe that a framework for temporarily-shared state should meet two key goals not adequately met by existing techniques. One, it should allow and encourage users to verify new sharing strategies. Two, it should provide an abstraction where users manipulate shared state in a way agnostic to the means with which it is shared. We present Leaf, a library in the Iris separation logic which accomplishes both of these goals by introducing a novel operator, which we call guarding, that allows one proposition to represent a shared version of another. We demonstrate that Leaf meets these two goals through a modular case study: we verify a reader-writer lock that supports shared state, and a hash table built on top of it that uses shared state.

Program logics for bug-finding (such as the recently introduced Incorrectness Logic) have framed correctness and incorrectness as dual concepts requiring different logical foundations. In this paper, we argue that a single unified theory can be used for both correctness and incorrectness reasoning. We present Outcome Logic (OL), a novel generalization of Hoare Logic that is both monadic (to capture computational effects) and monoidal (to reason about outcomes and reachability). OL expresses true positive bugs, while retaining correctness reasoning abilities as well. To formalize the applicability of OL to both correctness and incorrectness, we prove that any false OL specification can be disproven in OL itself. We also use our framework to reason about new types of incorrectness in nondeterministic and probabilistic programs. Given these advances, we advocate for OL as a new foundational theory of correctness and incorrectness.

We present a domain-specific type theory for constructions and proofs in category theory. The type theory axiomatizes notions of category, functor, profunctor and a generalized form of natural transformations. The type theory imposes an ordered linear restriction on standard predicate logic, which guarantees that all functions between categories are functorial, all relations are profunctorial, and all transformations are natural by construction, with no separate proofs necessary. Important category-theoretic proofs such as the Yoneda lemma and Co-yoneda lemma become simple type-theoretic proofs about the relationship between unit, tensor and (ordered) function types, and can be seen to be ordered refinements of theorems in predicate logic. The type theory is sound and complete for a categorical model in virtual equipments, which model both internal and enriched category theory. While the proofs in our type theory look like standard set-based arguments, the syntactic discipline ensure that all proofs and constructions carry over to enriched and internal settings as well.

Conflict-free Replicated Datatypes (CRDTs) are a class of distributed data structures that are highly-available and weakly consistent. The CRDT taxonomy is further divided into two subclasses: state-based and operation-based (op-based). Recent prior work showed how to use separation logic to verify convergence and functional correctness of op-based CRDTs while (a) verifying implementations (as opposed to high-level protocols), (b) giving high level specifications that abstract from low-level implementation details, and (c) providing specifications that are modular (i.e. allow client code to use the CRDT like an abstract data type). We extend this separation logic approach to verification of CRDTs to handle state-based CRDTs, while respecting the desiderata (a)-(c). The key idea is to track the state of a CRDT as a function of the set of operations that produced that state. Using the observation that state-based CRDTs are automatically causally-consistent, we obtain CRDT specifications that are agnostic to whether a CRDT is state- or op-based. When taken together with prior work, our technique thus provides a unified approach to specification and verification of op- and state-based CRDTs. We have tested our approach by verifying StateLib, a library for building state-based CRDTs. Using StateLib, we have further verified convergence and functional correctness of multiple example CRDTs from the literature. Our proofs are written in the Aneris distributed separation logic and are mechanized in Coq.

Several different topoi have played an important role in the development and applications of synthetic guarded domain theory (SGDT), a new kind of synthetic domain theory that abstracts the concept of guarded recursion frequently employed in the semantics of programming languages. In order to unify the accounts of guarded recursion and coinduction, several authors have enriched SGDT with multiple “clocks” parameterizing different time-streams, leading to more complex and difficult to understand topos models. Until now these topoi have been understood very concretely qua categories of presheaves, and the logico-geometrical question of what theories these topoi classify has remained open. We show that several important topos models of SGDT classify very simple geometric theories, and that the passage to various forms of multi-clock guarded recursion can be rephrased more compositionally in terms of the lower bagtopos construction of Vickers and variations thereon due to Johnstone. We contribute to the consolidation of SGDT by isolating the universal property of multi-clock guarded recursion as a modular construction that applies to any topos model of single-clock guarded recursion.

Today’s compilers employ a variety of non-trivial optimizations to achieve good performance. One key trick compilers use to justify transformations of concurrent programs is to assume that the source program has no data races: if it does, they cause the program to have undefined behavior (UB) and give the compiler free rein. However, verifying correctness of optimizations that exploit this assumption is a non-trivial problem. In particular, prior work either has not proven that such optimizations preserve program termination (particularly non-obvious when considering optimizations that move instructions out of loop bodies), or has treated all synchronization operations as external functions (losing the ability to reorder instructions around them).

In this work we present Simuliris, the first simulation technique to establish termination preservation (under a fair scheduler) for a range of concurrent program transformations that exploit UB in the source language. Simuliris is based on the idea of using ownership to reason modularly about the assumptions the compiler makes about programs with well-defined behavior. This brings the benefits of concurrent separation logics to the space of verifying program transformations: we can combine powerful reasoning techniques such as framing and coinduction to perform thread-local proofs of non-trivial concurrent program optimizations. Simuliris is built on a (non-step-indexed) variant of the Coq-based Iris framework, and is thus not tied to a particular language. In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of Simuliris on standard compiler optimizations involving data race UB, we also instantiate it with Jung et al.’s Stacked Borrows semantics for Rust and generalize their proofs of interesting type-based aliasing optimizations to account for concurrency.

We present calf, a cost-aware logical framework for studying quantitative aspects of functional programs. Taking inspiration from recent work that reconstructs traditional aspects of programming languages in terms of a modal account of phase distinctions, we argue that the cost structure of programs motivates a phase distinction between intension and extension. Armed with this technology, we contribute a synthetic account of cost structure as a computational effect in which cost-aware programs enjoy an internal noninterference property: input/output behavior cannot depend on cost. As a full-spectrum dependent type theory, calf presents a unified language for programming and specification of both cost and behavior that can be integrated smoothly with existing mathematical libraries available in type theoretic proof assistants. We evaluate calf as a general framework for cost analysis by implementing two fundamental techniques for algorithm analysis: the method of recurrence relations and physicist’s method for amortized analysis. We deploy these techniques on a variety of case studies: we prove a tight, closed bound for Euclid’s algorithm, verify the amortized complexity of batched queues, and derive tight, closed bounds for the sequential and parallel complexity of merge sort, all fully mechanized in the Agda proof assistant. Lastly we substantiate the soundness of quantitative reasoning in calf by means of a model construction.

Step-indexed logical relations are an extremely useful technique for building operational-semantics-based models and program logics for realistic, richly-typed programming languages. They have proven to be indispensable for modeling features like higher-order state , which many languages support but which were difficult to accommodate using traditional denotational models. However, the conventional wisdom is that, because they only support reasoning about finite traces of computation, (unary) step-indexed models are only good for proving safety properties like “well-typed programs don’t go wrong”. There has consequently been very little work on using step-indexing to establish liveness properties, in particular termination. In this paper, we show that step-indexing can in fact be used to prove termination of well-typed programs—even in the presence of dynamically-allocated, shared, mutable, higher-order state—so long as one’s type system enforces disciplined use of such state. Specifically, we consider a language with asynchronous channels, inspired by promises in JavaScript, in which higher-order state is used to implement communication, and linearity is used to ensure termination. The key to our approach is to generalize from natural number step-indexing to transfinite step-indexing , which enables us to compute termination bounds for program expressions in a compositional way. Although transfinite step-indexing has been proposed previously, we are the first to apply this technique to reasoning about termination in the presence of higher-order state.

We present a new version of ReLoC: a relational separation logic for proving refinements of programs with higher-order state, fine-grained concurrency, polymorphism and recursive types. The core of ReLoC is its refinement judgment $𝑒\precsim 𝑒\prime :𝜏$, which states that a program $𝑒$ refines a program $𝑒\prime$ at type $𝜏$. ReLoC provides type-directed structural rules and symbolic execution rules in separation-logic style for manipulating the judgment, whereas in prior work on refinements for languages with higher-order state and concurrency, such proofs were carried out by unfolding the judgment into its definition in the model. ReLoC’s abstract proof rules make it simpler to carry out refinement proofs, and enable us to generalize the notion of logically atomic specifications to the relational case, which we call logically atomic relational specifications. We build ReLoC on top of the Iris framework for separation logic in Coq, allowing us to leverage features of Iris to prove soundness of ReLoC, and to carry out refinement proofs in ReLoC. We implement tactics for interactive proofs in ReLoC, allowing us to mechanize several case studies in Coq, and thereby demonstrate the practicality of ReLoC. ReLoC Reloaded extends ReLoC (LICS’18) with various technical improvements, a new Coq mechanization, and support for Iris’s prophecy variables. The latter allows us to carry out refinement proofs that involve reasoning about the program’s future. We also expand ReLoC’s notion of logically atomic relational specifications with a new flavor based on the HOCAP pattern by Svendsen et al.

The implementation and semantics of dependent type theories can be studied in a syntax-independent way: the objective metatheory of dependent type theories exploits the universal properties of their syntactic categories to endow them with computational content, mathematical meaning, and practical implementation (normalization, type checking, elaboration). The semantic methods of the objective metatheory inform the design and implementation of correct-by-construction elaboration algorithms, promising a principled interface between real proof assistants and ideal mathematics. In this dissertation, I add synthetic Tait computability to the arsenal of the objective metatheorist. Synthetic Tait computability is a mathematical machine to reduce difficult problems of type theory and programming languages to trivial theorems of topos theory. First employed by Sterling and Harper to reconstruct the theory of program modules and their phase separated parametricity, synthetic Tait computability is deployed here to resolve the last major open question in the syntactic metatheory of cubical type theory: normalization of open terms.

Development of formal proofs of correctness of programs can increase actual and perceived reliability and facilitate better understanding of program specifications and their underlying assumptions. Tools supporting such development have been available for over 40 years, but have only recently seen wide practical use. Projects based on construction of machine-checked formal proofs are now reaching an unprecedented scale, comparable to large software projects, which leads to new challenges in proof development and maintenance. Despite its increasing importance, the field of proof engineering is seldom considered in its own right; related theories, techniques, and tools span many fields and venues. This survey of the literature presents a holistic understanding of proof engineering for program correctness, covering impact in practice, foundations, proof automation, proof organization, and practical proof development.

Iris is a framework for higher-order concurrent separation logic, which has been implemented in the Coq proof assistant and deployed very effectively in a wide variety of verification projects. Iris was designed with the express goal of simplifying and consolidating the foundations of modern separation logics, but it has evolved over time, and the design and semantic foundations of Iris itself have yet to be fully written down and explained together properly in one place. Here, we attempt to fill this gap, presenting a reasonably complete picture of the latest version of Iris (version 3.1), from first principles and in one coherent narrative.

We present a logical relations model of a higher-order functional programming language with impredicative polymorphism, recursive types, and a Haskell-style ST monad type with runST. We use our logical relations model to show that runST provides proper encapsulation of state, by showing that effectful computations encapsulated by runST are heap independent. Furthermore, we show that contextual refinements and equivalences that are expected to hold for pure computations do indeed hold in the presence of runST. This is the first time such relational results have been proven for a language with monadic encapsulation of state. We have formalized all the technical development and results in Coq.

Compiler correctness proofs for higher-order concurrent languages are difficult: they involve establishing a termination-preserving refinement between a concurrent high-level source language and an implementation that uses low-level shared memory primitives. However, existing logics for proving concurrent refinement either neglect properties such as termination, or only handle first-order state. In this paper, we address these limitations by extending Iris, a recent higher-order concurrent separation logic, with support for reasoning about termination-preserving refinements. To demonstrate the power of these extensions, we prove the correctness of an efficient implementation of a higher-order, session-typed language. To our knowledge, this is the first program logic capable of giving a compiler correctness proof for such a language. The soundness of our extensions and our compiler correctness proof have been mechanized in Coq.

The development of concurrent separation logic (CSL) has sparked a long line of work on modular verification of sophisticated concurrent programs. Two of the most important features supported by several existing extensions to CSL are higher-order quantification and custom ghost state. However, none of the logics that support both of these features reap the full potential of their combination. In particular, none of them provide general support for a feature we dub “higher-order ghost state”: the ability to store arbitrary higher-order separation-logic predicates in ghost variables. In this paper, we propose higher-order ghost state as a interesting and useful extension to CSL, which we formalize in the framework of Jung et al.‘s recently developed Iris logic. To justify its soundness, we develop a novel algebraic structure called CMRAs (“cameras”), which can be thought of as “step-indexed partial commutative monoids”. Finally, we show that Iris proofs utilizing higher-order ghost state can be effectively formalized in Coq, and discuss the challenges we faced in formalizing them.