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.

We develop a denotational model for probabilistic and concurrent imperative programs, a class of programs with standard control flow via conditionals and while-loops, as well as probabilistic actions and parallel composition. Whereas semantics for concurrent or randomized programs in isolation is well studied, their combination has not been thoroughly explored and presents unique challenges. The crux of the problem is that interactions between control flow, probabilistic actions, and concurrent execution cannot be captured by straightforward generalizations of prior work on pomsets and convex languages, prominent models for those effects, individually. Our model has good domain theoretic properties, important for semantics of unbounded loops. We also prove two adequacy theorems, showing that the model subsumes typical powerdomain semantics for concurrency and convex powerdomain semantics for probabilistic nondeterminism.

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 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.

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.

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.

In joint work with Peter O’Hearn and others, based on early ideas of Burstall, we have developed an extension of Hoare logic that permits reasoning about low-level imperative programs that use shared mutable data structure. The simple imperative programming language is extended with commands (not expressions) for accessing and modifying shared structures, and for explicit allocation and deallocation of storage. Assertions are extended by introducing a “separating conjunction” that asserts that its subformulas hold for disjoint parts of the heap, and a closely related “separating implication”. Coupled with the inductive definition of predicates on abstract data structures, this extension permits the concise and flexible description of structures with controlled sharing. In this paper, we survey the current development of this program logic, including extensions that permit unrestricted address arithmetic, dynamically allocated arrays, and recursive procedures. We also discuss promising future directions.

We introduce a logic BI in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live side-by-side. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the proof-theoretic relationship between conjunction and implication; it can be viewed as a merging of intuitionistic logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The naturality of BI can be seen categorically: models of propositional BI’s proofs are given by bicartesian doubly closed categories, i.e., categories which freely combine the semantics of propositional intuitionistic logic and propositional multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The predicate version of BI includes, in addition to standard additive quantifiers, multiplicative (or intensional) quantifiers [inline image] and [inline image] which arise from observing restrictions on structural rules on the level of terms as well as propositions. We discuss computational interpretations, based on sharing, at both the propositional and predicate levels.