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.

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.

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.

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.

Kleene algebra with tests (KAT) is a foundational equational framework for reasoning about programs, which has found applications in program transformations, networking and compiler optimizations, among many other areas. In his seminal work, Kozen proved that KAT subsumes propositional Hoare logic, showing that one can reason about the (partial) correctness of while programs by means of the equational theory of KAT. In this work, we investigate the support that KAT provides for reasoning about incorrectness, instead, as embodied by O’Hearn’s recently proposed incorrectness logic. We show that KAT cannot directly express incorrectness logic. The main reason for this limitation can be traced to the fact that KAT cannot express explicitly the notion of codomain, which is essential to express incorrectness triples. To address this issue, we study Kleene Algebra with Top and Tests (TopKAT), an extension of KAT with a top element. We show that TopKAT is powerful enough to express a codomain operation, to express incorrectness triples, and to prove all the rules of incorrectness logic sound. This shows that one can reason about the incorrectness of while-like programs by means of the equational theory of TopKAT.