{"title":"复杂逻辑的简明大纲:TaDA的证明大纲检查器","authors":"Felix A. Wolf, Malte Schwerhoff, Peter Müller","doi":"10.1007/s10703-023-00427-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Modern separation logics allow one to prove rich properties of intricate code, e.g., functional correctness and linearizability of non-blocking concurrent code. However, this expressiveness leads to a complexity that makes these logics difficult to apply. Manual proofs or proofs in interactive theorem provers consist of a large number of steps, often with subtle side conditions. On the other hand, automation with dedicated verifiers typically requires sophisticated proof search algorithms that are specific to the given program logic, resulting in limited tool support that makes it difficult to experiment with program logics, e.g., when learning, improving, or comparing them. Proof outline checkers fill this gap. Their input is a program annotated with the most essential proof steps, just like the proof outlines typically presented in papers. The tool then checks automatically that this outline represents a valid proof in the program logic. In this paper, we systematically develop a proof outline checker for the TaDA logic, which reduces the checking to a simpler verification problem, for which automated tools exist. Our approach leads to proof outline checkers that provide substantially more automation than interactive provers, but are much simpler to develop than custom automatic verifiers.","PeriodicalId":12430,"journal":{"name":"Formal Methods in System Design","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concise outlines for a complex logic: a proof outline checker for TaDA\",\"authors\":\"Felix A. Wolf, Malte Schwerhoff, Peter Müller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10703-023-00427-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Modern separation logics allow one to prove rich properties of intricate code, e.g., functional correctness and linearizability of non-blocking concurrent code. However, this expressiveness leads to a complexity that makes these logics difficult to apply. Manual proofs or proofs in interactive theorem provers consist of a large number of steps, often with subtle side conditions. On the other hand, automation with dedicated verifiers typically requires sophisticated proof search algorithms that are specific to the given program logic, resulting in limited tool support that makes it difficult to experiment with program logics, e.g., when learning, improving, or comparing them. Proof outline checkers fill this gap. Their input is a program annotated with the most essential proof steps, just like the proof outlines typically presented in papers. The tool then checks automatically that this outline represents a valid proof in the program logic. In this paper, we systematically develop a proof outline checker for the TaDA logic, which reduces the checking to a simpler verification problem, for which automated tools exist. Our approach leads to proof outline checkers that provide substantially more automation than interactive provers, but are much simpler to develop than custom automatic verifiers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Formal Methods in System Design\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Formal Methods in System Design\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-023-00427-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Formal Methods in System Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-023-00427-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concise outlines for a complex logic: a proof outline checker for TaDA
Abstract Modern separation logics allow one to prove rich properties of intricate code, e.g., functional correctness and linearizability of non-blocking concurrent code. However, this expressiveness leads to a complexity that makes these logics difficult to apply. Manual proofs or proofs in interactive theorem provers consist of a large number of steps, often with subtle side conditions. On the other hand, automation with dedicated verifiers typically requires sophisticated proof search algorithms that are specific to the given program logic, resulting in limited tool support that makes it difficult to experiment with program logics, e.g., when learning, improving, or comparing them. Proof outline checkers fill this gap. Their input is a program annotated with the most essential proof steps, just like the proof outlines typically presented in papers. The tool then checks automatically that this outline represents a valid proof in the program logic. In this paper, we systematically develop a proof outline checker for the TaDA logic, which reduces the checking to a simpler verification problem, for which automated tools exist. Our approach leads to proof outline checkers that provide substantially more automation than interactive provers, but are much simpler to develop than custom automatic verifiers.
期刊介绍:
The focus of this journal is on formal methods for designing, implementing, and validating the correctness of hardware (VLSI) and software systems. The stimulus for starting a journal with this goal came from both academia and industry. In both areas, interest in the use of formal methods has increased rapidly during the past few years. The enormous cost and time required to validate new designs has led to the realization that more powerful techniques must be developed. A number of techniques and tools are currently being devised for improving the reliability, and robustness of complex hardware and software systems. While the boundary between the (sub)components of a system that are cast in hardware, firmware, or software continues to blur, the relevant design disciplines and formal methods are maturing rapidly. Consequently, an important (and useful) collection of commonly applicable formal methods are expected to emerge that will strongly influence future design environments and design methods.