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 seek to enable more flexible use of rich specifications in a variety of ways that smoothly extend conventional software development practice. We show how a single specification language, based on separation logic to capture the subtle ownership disciplines of systems code, can be used for runtime assertion checking, for property-based testing, and for formal machine-checked proof—and how each of these complements and supports the others. We demonstrate all this on a challenging example: a component of a production hypervisor, running both stand-alone at user level and in situ in the hypervisor.

Differential privacy is the standard method for privacy-preserving data analysis. The importance of having strong guarantees on the reliability of implementations of differentially private algorithms is widely recognized and has sparked fruitful research on formal methods. However, the design patterns and language features used in modern DP libraries as well as the classes of guarantees that the library designers wish to establish often fall outside of the scope of previous verification approaches. We introduce a program logic suitable for verifying differentially private implementations written in complex, general-purpose programming languages. Our logic has first-class support for reasoning about privacy budgets as a separation logic resource. The expressiveness of the logic and the target language allow our approach to handle common programming patterns used in the implementation of libraries for differential privacy, such as privacy filters and caching. While previous work has focused on developing guarantees for programs written in domain-specific languages or for privacy mechanisms in isolation, our logic can reason modularly about primitives, higher-order combinators, and interactive algorithms. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach by implementing a verified library of differential privacy mechanisms, including an online version of the Sparse Vector Technique, as well as a privacy filter inspired by the popular Python library OpenDP, which crucially relies on our ability to handle the combination of randomization, local state, and higher-order functions. We demonstrate that our specifications are general and reusable by instantiating them to verify clients of our library. All of our results have been foundationally verified in the Rocq Prover.

WasmFX is a proposed extension of Wasm, a low-level portable bytecode, with primitives for explicitly manipulating execution stacks as continuations. By exposing an interface of effect handlers, WasmFX enables non-local control flow features to be compiled in a modular way: one handcrafts a library that directly implements such features in WasmFX, and compilation then merely calls into the library. Alas, code involving non-local control flow is notoriously challenging, and so this proposal raises the questions of the soundness of the language extension, and of the correctness of such handcrafted libraries. In this paper, we first describe WasmFXCert, a mechanisation of WasmFX in Rocq, and prove the expected type soundness result. We then develop Iris-WasmFX, a program logic to reason about Wasm programs that use effect handlers, and illustrate its application to two key use cases of effect handlers: a coroutine library, and a generator. Together, these validate the design of WasmFX, and provide a modular framework for verifying future effect-based libraries.

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.

A key feature in trusted computing is attestation, which allows encapsulated components (enclaves) to prove their identity to (local or remote) distrusting components. Reasoning about software that uses the technique requires tracking how trust evolves after successful attestation. This process is security-critical and non-trivial, but no existing formal verification technique supports modular reasoning about attestation of enclaves and their clients, or proving end-to-end properties for systems combining trusted, untrusted and attested code. We contribute Cerisier, the first program logic for modular reasoning about trusted, untrusted and attested code, fully mechanized in the Iris separation logic and the Rocq Prover. We formalize a recent proposal, CHERI-TrEE, to extend capability machines with enclave primitives, as an extension to the Cerise capability machine and program logic. Our program logic comes with a universal contract for untrusted code, which captures both capability safety and local enclave attestation. Like Cerise, this universal contract is phrased in terms of a logical relation defining capabilities’ authority. We demonstrate Cerisier by proving end-to-end properties for three representative applications of trusted computing: secure outsourced computation, mutual attestation and a modeled trusted sensor component.

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.

We use the theory of algebraic effects to give a complete equational axiomatization for dynamic threads. Our method is based on parameterized algebraic theories, which give a concrete syntax for strong monads on functor categories, and are a convenient framework for names and binding. Our programs are built from the key primitives ‘fork’ and ‘wait’. ‘Fork’ creates a child thread and passes its name (thread ID) to the parent thread. ‘Wait’ allows us to wait for given child threads to finish. We provide a parameterized algebraic theory built from fork and wait, together with basic atomic actions and laws such as associativity of ‘fork’. Our equational axiomatization is complete in two senses. First, for closed expressions, it completely captures equality of labelled posets (pomsets), an established model of concurrency: model complete. Second, any two open expressions are provably equal if they are equal under all closing substitutions: syntactically complete. The benefit of algebraic effects is that the semantic analysis can focus on the algebraic operations of fork and wait. We then extend the analysis to a simple concurrent programming language by giving operational and denotational semantics. The denotational semantics is built using the methods of parameterized algebraic theories and we show that it is sound, adequate, and fully abstract at first order for labelled-poset observations.

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.

Most implementations of sampling algorithms for continuous distributions use floating-point numbers, which introduce round-off errors and approximations. These errors can be difficult to analyze, and can cause security issues when used in algorithms for differential privacy. An alternative is to use exact sampling algorithms based on computable reals, which can lazily generate the digits of a continuous sample to arbitrary precision. However, these algorithms are intricate, and implementing and using them involves a combination of semantically challenging language features, such as probabilistic choice, higher-order functions, and dynamically-allocated mutable state. In this paper we present Continuous-Eris, a higher-order separation logic for verifying the correctness of exact sampling algorithms for computable distributions. To demonstrate Continuous-Eris, we verify the correctness of computable samplers for the uniform, Gaussian, and Laplace distributions, as well as a library for exact real arithmetic for working with generated samples. All of the results in this paper have been verified in the Rocq proof assistant.

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.

Guarded Interaction Trees are a structure and a fully formalized framework for representing higher-order computations with higher-order effects in Rocq. We present an extension of Guarded Interaction Trees to support formal reasoning about context-dependent effects. That is, effects whose behaviors depend on the evaluation context, e.g., call/cc, shift and reset. Using and reasoning about such effects is challenging since certain compositionality principles no longer hold in the presence of such effects. For example, the so-called “bind rule” in modern program logics is no longer valid. The goal of our extension is to support representation and reasoning about context-dependent effects in the most painless way possible. To that end, our extension is conservative: the reasoning principles for context-independent effects remain the same. We use it to give direct-style denotational semantics for higher-order programming languages with call/cc and with delimited continuations. We extend the program logic for Guarded Interaction Trees to account for context-dependent effects, and we use the program logic to prove that the denotational semantics is adequate with respect to the operational semantics. Additionally, we retain the ability to combine multiple effects in a modular way, which we demonstrate by showing type soundness for safe interoperability of a programming language with delimited continuations and a programming language with higher-order store. Furthermore, as another contribution, in addition to context-dependent effects, we show how to extend Guarded Interaction Trees with preemptive concurrency. To support implementation and verification of concurrent data structures and algorithms in the presence of preemptive concurrency one requires atomic state modification operations, e.g., compare-and-exchange.

Semantic typing has become a powerful tool for program verification, applying the technique of logical relations as not only a proof method, but also a device for prescribing program behavior. In recent work, Yao et al. scaled semantic typing to the verification of timed message-passing protocols, which are prevalent in, e.g., IoT and real-time systems applications. The appeal of semantic typing in this context is precisely because of its ability to support typed and untyped program components alike – including physical objects – which caters to the heterogeneity of these applications. Another demand inherent to these applications is timing: constraining the time or time window within which a message exchange must happen. Yao et al. equipped their logical relation not only with temporal predicates, but also with computable trajectories, to supply the evidence that an inhabitant can step from one time point to another one. While Yao et al. provide the formalization for such a verification tool, it lacks a mechanization. Mechanizing the system would not only provide a machine proof for it, but also facilitate scalability for future extensions and applications. This paper tackles the challenge of mechanizing the resulting proof-relevant logical relation in a proof assistant. allowing trajectories to be interleaved, partitioned, and concatenated, while the intended equality on trajectories is the equality of their graphs when seen as processes indexed by time. Unfortunately, proof assistants based on intensional type theory only have modest support for such equations, forcing a prolific use of transports. This paper reports on the process of mechanizing Yao et al.‘s results, comprising the logical relation, the algebra of computable trajectories with supporting lemmas, and the fundamental theorem of the logical relation, in the Rocq theorem prover.

Rust’s novel type system has proved an attractive target for verification and program analysis tools, due to the rich guarantees it provides for controlling aliasing and mutability. However, fully understanding, extracting and exploiting these guarantees is subtle and challenging: existing models for Rust’s type checking either support a smaller idealised language disconnected from real-world Rust code, or come with severe limitations in terms of precise modelling of Rust borrows, composite types storing them, function signatures and loops. In this paper, we present Place Capability Graphs : a novel model of Rust’s type-checking results, which lifts these limitations, and which can be directly calculated from the Rust compiler’s own programmatic representations and analyses. We demonstrate that our model supports over 97% of Rust functions in the most popular public crates, and show its suitability as a general-purpose basis for verification and program analysis tools by developing promising new prototype versions of the existing Flowistry and Prusti tools.

Linear type systems are powerful because they can statically ensure the correct management of resources like memory, but they can also be cumbersome to work with, since even benign uses of a resource require that it be explicitly threaded through during computation. Borrowing , as popularized by Rust, reduces this burden by allowing one to temporarily disable certain resource permissions (e.g., deallocation or mutation) in exchange for enabling certain structural permissions (e.g., weakening or contraction). In particular, this mechanism spares the borrower of a resource from having to explicitly return it to the lender but nevertheless ensures that the lender eventually reclaims ownership of the resource. In this paper, we elucidate the semantics of borrowing by starting with a standard linear type system for ensuring safe manual memory management in an untyped lambda calculus and gradually augmenting it with immutable borrows, lexical lifetimes, reborrowing, and finally mutable borrows. We prove semantic type soundness for our Borrow Calculus ( BoCa ) using Borrow Logic ( BoLo ), a novel domain-specific separation logic for borrowing. We establish the soundness of this logic using a semantic model that additionally guarantees that our calculus is terminating and free of memory leaks. We also show that our Borrow Logic is robust enough to establish the semantic safety of some syntactically ill-typed programs that temporarily break but reestablish invariants.

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.

Separation logic has become an important tool for formally capturing and reasoning about the ownership patterns of imperative programs, originally for paper proof, and now the foundation for industrial static analyses and multiple proof tools. However, there has been very little work on program testing of separationlogic specifications in concrete execution. At first sight, separation-logic formulas are hard to evaluate in reasonable time, with their implicit quantification over heap splittings, and other explicit existentials. In this paper we observe that a restricted fragment of separation logic, adopted in the CN proof tool to enable predictable proof automation, also has a natural and readable computational interpretation, that makes it practically usable in runtime testing. We discuss various design issues and develop this as a C + CN source to C source translation, Fulminate. This adds checks – including ownership checks and ownership transfer – for C code annotated with CN pre- and post-conditions; we demonstrate this on nontrivial examples, including the allocator from a production hypervisor. We formalise our runtime ownership testing scheme, showing (and proving) how its reified ghost state correctly captures ownership passing, in a semantics for a small C-like language.

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.

We revisit the foundational notion of “resources” used by separation logics from a categorical and algebraic viewpoint. In particular, we show that the cameras used by concurrent, higher-order, impredicative separation logics like Iris as a generalization of partial commutative monoids can be simplified and clarified and we introduce a category of cameras in which many vital cameras exhibit simple universal properties. We do this by observing that an important structure on cameras (the core operator) can be uniquely constrained and replaced by the property governing the idempotent elements of the camera. We verify that all cameras used in practice in Iris satisfy this property and use this insight to simplify the existing Iris formalization.

Guarded Interaction Trees are a structure and a fully formalized framework for representing higher-order computations with higher-order effects in Coq. We present an extension of Guarded Interaction Trees to support formal reasoning about context-dependent effects. That is, effects whose behaviors depend on the evaluation context, e.g., call/cc, shift, and reset. Using and reasoning about such effects is challenging since certain compositionality principles no longer hold in the presence of such effects. For example, the so-called “bind rule” in modern program logics (which allows one to reason modularly about a term inside a context) is no longer valid. The goal of our extension is to support representation and reasoning about context-dependent effects in the most painless way possible. To that end, our extension is conservative: the reasoning principles (and the Coq implementation) for context-independent effects remain the same. We show that our implementation of context-dependent effects is viable and powerful. We use it to give direct-style denotational semantics for higher-order programming languages with call/cc and with delimited continuations. We extend the program logic for Guarded Interaction Trees to account for context-dependent effects, and we use the program logic to prove that the denotational semantics is adequate with respect to the operational semantics. This is achieved by constructing logical relations between syntax and semantics inside the program logic. Additionally, we retain the ability to combine multiple effects in a modular way, which we demonstrate by showing type soundness for safe interoperability of a programming language with delimited continuations and a programming language with higher-order store.

Constructing solutions to recursive domain equations is a well-known, important problem in the study of programs and programming languages. Mathematically speaking, the problem is finding a fixed point (up to isomorphism) of a suitable functor over a suitable category. A particularly useful instance, inspired by the step-indexing technique, is where the functor is over (a subcategory of) the category of presheaves over the ordinal ω and the functors are locally-contractive, also known as guarded functors. This corresponds to step-indexing over natural numbers. However, for certain problems, e.g., when dealing with infinite non-determinism, one needs to employ trans-finite step-indexing, i.e., consider presheaf categories over higher ordinals. Prior work on trans-finite step-indexing either only considers a very narrow class of functors over a particularly restricted subcategory of presheaves over higher ordinals, or treats the problem very generally working with sheaves over an arbitrary complete Heyting algebra with a well-founded basis. In this paper we present a solution to the guarded domain equations problem over all guarded functors over the category of presheaves over ordinal numbers, as well as its mechanization in the Rocq Prover. As the categories of sheaves and presheaves over ordinals are equivalent, our main contribution is simplifying prior work from the setting of the category of sheaves to the setting of the category of presheaves and mechanizing it - presheaves are more amenable to mechanization in a proof assistant.

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.

A capability machine is a type of CPU allowing fine-grained privilege separation using capabilities , machine words that represent certain kinds of authority. We present a mathematical model and accompanying proof methods that can be used for formal verification of functional correctness of programs running on a capability machine, even when they invoke and are invoked by unknown (and possibly malicious) code. We use a program logic called Cerise for reasoning about known code, and an associated logical relation, for reasoning about unknown code. The logical relation formally captures the capability safety guarantees provided by the capability machine. The Cerise program logic, logical relation, and all the examples considered in the paper have been mechanized using the Iris program logic framework in the Coq proof assistant. The methodology we present underlies recent work of the authors on formal reasoning about capability machines [Georges et al. 2021 ; Skorstengaard et al. 2019a ; Van Strydonck et al. 2022 ], but was left somewhat implicit in those publications. In this paper we present a pedagogical introduction to the methodology, in a simpler setting (no exotic capabilities), and starting from minimal examples. We work our way up to new results about a heap-based calling convention and implementations of sophisticated object-capability patterns of the kind previously studied for high-level languages with object-capabilities, demonstrating that the methodology scales to such reasoning.

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.

This paper considers direct encodings of generalized algebraic data types (GADTs) in a minimal suitable lambda-calculus. To this end, we develop an extension of System ${𝐹}_{𝜔}$ with recursive types and internalized type equalities with injective constant type constructors. We show how GADTs and associated pattern-matching constructs can be directly expressed in the calculus, thus showing that it may be treated as a highly idealized modern functional programming language. We prove that the internalized type equalities in conjunction with injectivity rules increase the expressive power of the calculus by establishing a non-macro-expressibility result in ${𝐹}_{𝜔}$, and prove the system type-sound via a syntactic argument. Finally, we build two relational models of our calculus: a simple, unary model that illustrates a novel, two-stage interpretation technique, necessary to account for the equational constraints; and a more sophisticated, binary model that relaxes the construction to allow, for the first time, formal reasoning about data-abstraction in a calculus equipped with GADTs.

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.

Separation logic is used to reason locally about stateful programs. State of the art program logics for higher-order store are usually built on top of untyped operational semantics, in part because traditional denotational methods have struggled to simultaneously account for general references and parametric polymorphism. The recent discovery of simple denotational semantics for general references and polymorphism in synthetic guarded domain theory has enabled us to develop TULIP, a higher-order separation logic over the typed equational theory of higher-order store for a monadic version of System F{mu,ref}. The Tulip logic differs from operationally-based program logics in two ways: predicates range over the meanings of typed terms rather than over the raw code of untyped terms, and they are automatically invariant under the equational congruence of higher-order store, which applies even underneath a binder. As a result, “pure” proof steps that conventionally require focusing the Hoare triple on an operational redex are replaced by a simple equational rewrite in Tulip. We have evaluated Tulip against standard examples involving linked lists in the heap, comparing our abstract equational reasoning with more familiar operational-style reasoning. Our main result is the soundness of Tulip, which we establish by constructing a BI-hyperdoctrine over the denotational semantics of F{mu,ref} in an impredicative version of synthetic guarded domain theory.

Type refinements combine the compositionality of typechecking with the expressivity of program logics, offering a synergistic approach to program verification. In this paper we apply dependent type refinements to SAX, a futures-based process calculus that arises from the Curry-Howard interpretation of the intuitionistic semi-axiomatic sequent calculus and includes unrestricted recursion both at the level of types and processes. With our type refinement system, we can reason about the partial correctness of SAX programs, complementing prior work on sized type refinements that supports reasoning about termination. Our design regime synthesizes the infinitary proof theory of SAX with that of bidirectional typing and Hoare logic, deriving some standard reasoning principles for data and (co)recursion while enabling information hiding for codata. We prove syntactic type soundness, which entails a notion of partial correctness that respects codata encapsulation. We illustrate our language through a few simple examples.

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.

We present a foundationally verified implementation of a reliable communication library for asynchronous client-server communication, and a stack of formally verified components on top thereof. Our library is implemented in an OCaml-like language on top of UDP and features characteristic traits of existing protocols, such as a simple handshaking protocol, bidirectional channels, and retransmission/acknowledgement mechanisms. We verify the library in the Aneris distributed separation logic using a novel proof pattern—dubbed the session escrow pattern—based on the existing escrow proof pattern and the so-called dependent separation protocols, which hitherto have only been used in a non-distributed concurrent setting. We demonstrate how our specification of the reliable communication library simplifies formal reasoning about applications, such as a remote procedure call library, which we in turn use to verify a lazily replicated key-value store with leader-followers and clients thereof. Our development is highly modular—each component is verified relative to specifications of the components it uses (not the implementation). All our results are formalized in the Coq proof assistant.

We present Lilac, a separation logic for reasoning about probabilistic programs where separating conjunction captures probabilistic independence. Inspired by an analogy with mutable state where sampling corresponds to dynamic allocation, we show how probability spaces over a fixed, ambient sample space appear to be the natural analogue of heap fragments, and present a new combining operation on them such that probability spaces behave like heaps and measurability of random variables behaves like ownership. This combining operation forms the basis for our model of separation, and produces a logic with many pleasant properties. In particular, Lilac has a frame rule identical to the ordinary one, and naturally accommodates advanced features like continuous random variables and reasoning about quantitative properties of programs. Then we propose a new modality based on disintegration theory for reasoning about conditional probability. We show how the resulting modal logic validates examples from prior work, and give a formal verification of an intricate weighted sampling algorithm whose correctness depends crucially on conditional independence structure.

The Rust programming language provides a powerful type system that checks linearity and borrowing, allowing code to safely manipulate memory without garbage collection and making Rust ideal for developing low-level, high-assurance systems. For such systems, formal verification can be useful to prove functional correctness properties beyond type safety. This paper presents Verus, an SMT-based tool for formally verifying Rust programs. With Verus, programmers express proofs and specifications using the Rust language, allowing proofs to take advantage of Rust’s linear types and borrow checking. We show how this allows proofs to manipulate linearly typed permissions that let Rust code safely manipulate memory, pointers, and concurrent resources. Verus organizes proofs and specifications using a novel mode system that distinguishes specifications, which are not checked for linearity and borrowing, from executable code and proofs, which are checked for linearity and borrowing. We formalize Verus’ linearity, borrowing, and modes in a small lambda calculus, for which we prove type safety and termination of specifications and proofs. We demonstrate Verus on a series of examples, including pointer-manipulating code (an xor-based doubly linked list), code with interior mutability, and concurrent code.

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.

Despite significant progress in the verification of hypervisors, operating systems, and compilers, and in verification tooling, there exists a wide gap between the approaches used in verification projects and conventional development of systems software. We see two main challenges in bringing these closer together: verification handling the complexity of code and semantics of conventional systems software, and verification usability. We describe an experiment in verification tool design aimed at addressing some aspects of both: we design and implement CN, a separation-logic refinement type system for C systems software, aimed at predictable proof automation, based on a realistic semantics of ISO C. CN reduces refinement typing to decidable propositional logic reasoning, uses first-class resources to support pointer aliasing and pointer arithmetic, features resource inference for iterated separating conjunction, and uses a novel syntactic restriction of ghost variables in specifications to guarantee their successful inference. We implement CN and formalise key aspects of the type system, including a soundness proof of type checking. To demonstrate the usability of CN we use it to verify a substantial component of Google’s pKVM hypervisor for Android.

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.

Safely writing high-performance concurrent programs is notoriously difficult. To aid developers, we introduce Armada, a language and tool designed to formally verify such programs with relatively little effort. Via a C-like language and a small-step, state-machine-based semantics, Armadagives developers the flexibility to choose arbitrary memory layout and synchronization primitives so that they are never constrained in their pursuit of performance. To reduce developer effort, Armadaleverages SMT-powered automation and a library of powerful reasoning techniques, including rely-guarantee, TSO elimination, reduction, and pointer analysis. All of these techniques are proven sound, and Armadacan be soundly extended with additional strategies over time. Using Armada, we verify five concurrent case studies and show that we can achieve performance equivalent to that of unverified code.

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.