Abstract is a deductive verifier for probabilistic programs. At its core lies , a quantitative intermediate verification language based on the real-valued logic . allows users to express a probabilistic program, its specifications, and proof rules in a programming-language style, so that new proof rules can be easily integrated into the verifier. translates programs into verification conditions, which are then checked using the Z3 SMT solver. It also includes a backend based on probabilistic model checking for a subset of . We report on the results of five years of development of , highlighting its main features and architecture. In particular, we describe recent improvements such as additional proof rules, a model-checking backend, and better diagnostics.

A fundamental computational task in probabilistic programming is to infer a program’s output (posterior) distribution from a given initial (prior) distribution. This problem is challenging, especially for expressive languages that feature loops or unbounded recursion. While most of the existing literature focuses on statistical approximation, in this paper we address the problem of mathematically exact inference. To achieve this for programs with loops, we rely on a relatively underexplored type of probabilistic loop invariant, which is linked to a loop’s so-called occupation measure . The occupation measure associates program states with their expected number of visits, given the initial distribution. Based on this, we derive the notion of an occupation invariant . Such invariants are essentially dual to probabilistic martingales, the predominant technique for formal probabilistic loop analysis in the literature. A key feature of occupation invariants is that they can take the initial distribution into account and often yield a proof of positive almost sure termination as a by-product. Finally, we present an automatic, template-based invariant synthesis approach for occupation invariants by encoding them as generating functions . The approach is implemented and evaluated on a set of benchmarks.

Fixed points are a recurring theme in computer science and are often constructed as limits of suitably seeded fixed point iterations. We present the algebra of iterative constructions (AIC) - a purely algebraic approach to reasoning about fixed point iterations of continuous endomaps on complete lattices. AIC allows derivations of constructive fixed point theorems via equational logic and avoids explicit computations with indices. For example, F ◇ F^* ⊥ = ◇ F^* ⊥ states in AIC that sup_n Fⁿ (⊥) - a construction known from the Kleene fixed point theorem - is a fixed point of F. We demonstrate the applicability of AIC by providing algebraic proofs of several well- and less-well-known fixed point theorems: Among others, we prove the Tarski-Kantorovich principle - a generalization of the Kleene fixed point theorem - as well as a fixed point-theoretic generalization of k-induction - a technique used in software verification. We moreover present a novel fixed point theorem. It improves a recent generalization of the Tarski-Kantorovich principle due to Olszewski for obtaining pre- and postfixed points from lattice-theoretic limit inferiors and limit superiors through iterating an endomap on an arbitrary seed element: We identify sufficient continuity conditions on the endomaps so that these limits become proper fixed points. We have mechanized our algebra in Isabelle/HOL. Isabelle’s sledgehammer tool is able to find proofs of the above fixed point theorems fully automatically. Finally, we investigate the completeness of our axiomatization of AIC. We prove that our finite set of finitary axioms is (a) sound but incomplete for standard models of AIC (sequences of elements from a complete lattice) and that (b) a different finite set of infinitary axioms is complete. We also prove that infinitary axioms are unavoidable: there exists no complete axiomatization of standard models given by finitely many finitary axioms.

Probabilistic programming languages (PPLs) are an expressive and intuitive means of representing complex probability distributions. In that realm, languages like Dice target an important class of probabilistic programs: those whose probability distributions are discrete. Discrete distributions are common in many fields, including text analysis, network verification, artificial intelligence, and graph analysis. Another important feature in the world of probabilistic modeling are nondeterministic choices as found in Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) which play a major role in reinforcement learning. Modern PPLs usually lack support for nondeterminism . We address this gap with the introduction of noDice , which extends the discrete probabilistic inference engine Dice . noDice performs inference on loop-free programs by constructing an MDP so that the distributions modeled by the program correspond to schedulers in the MDP. Furthermore, decision diagrams are used as an intermediate step to exploit the program structure and drastically reduce the state space of the MDP.

We study Hoare-like logics, including partial and total correctness Hoare logic, incorrectness logic, Lisbon logic, and many others through the lens of predicate transformers à la Dijkstra and through the lens of Kleene algebra with top and tests (TopKAT). Our main goal is to give an overview – a taxonomy – of how these program logics relate, in particular under different assumptions like for example program termination, determinism, and reversibility. As a byproduct, we obtain a TopKAT characterization of Lisbon logic, which – to the best of our knowledge – is a novel result.

Abstract In addition to the difficulties with replicating experiments or systems from some given theoretical description, we discuss the possibility that already the theory itself is poorly replicable. After explaining what we understand by theory replicability, we propose to scientifically evaluate whether or not the broader field of Logic, Semantics, and Verification in Computer Science suffers from systematic theory replicability problems.

We present a novel weakest pre calculus for reasoning about quantitative hyperproperties over nondeterministic and probabilistic programs . Whereas existing calculi allow reasoning about the expected value that a quantity assumes after program termination from a single initial state , we do so for initial sets of states or initial probability distributions . We thus (i) obtain a weakest pre calculus for hyper Hoare logic and (ii) enable reasoning about so-called hyperquantities which include expected values but also quantities (e.g. variance) out of scope of previous work. As a byproduct, we obtain a novel strongest post for weighted programs that extends both existing strongest and strongest liberal post calculi. Our framework reveals novel dualities between forward and backward transformers, correctness and incorrectness, as well as nontermination and unreachability.

Abstract Essential tasks for the verification of probabilistic programs include bounding expected outcomes and proving termination in finite expected runtime. We contribute a simple yet effective inductive synthesis approach for proving such quantitative reachability properties by generating inductive invariants on source-code level . Our implementation shows promise: It finds invariants for (in)finite-state programs, can beat state-of-the-art probabilistic model checkers, and is competitive with modern tools dedicated to invariant synthesis and expected runtime reasoning.

We develop a weakest-precondition-style calculus à la Dijkstra for reasoning about amortized expected runtimes of randomized algorithms with access to dynamic memory — the aert calculus. Our calculus is truly quantitative, i.e. instead of Boolean valued predicates, it manipulates real-valued functions. En route to the aert calculus, we study the ert calculus for reasoning about expected runtimes of Kaminski et al. [2018] extended by capabilities for handling dynamic memory, thus enabling compositional and local reasoning about randomized data structures . This extension employs runtime separation logic , which has been foreshadowed by Matheja [2020] and then implemented in Isabelle/HOL by Haslbeck [2021]. In addition to Haslbeck’s results, we further prove soundness of the so-extended ert calculus with respect to an operational Markov decision process model featuring countably-branching nondeterminism, provide extensive intuitive explanations, and provide proof rules enabling separation logic-style verification for upper bounds on expected runtimes. Finally, we build the so-called potential method for amortized analysis into the ert calculus, thus obtaining the aert calculus. Soundness of the aert calculus is obtained from the soundness of the ert calculus and some probabilistic form of telescoping. Since one needs to be able to handle changes in potential which can in principle be both positive or negative, the aert calculus needs to be — essentially — capable of handling certain signed random variables. A particularly pleasing feature of our solution is that, unlike e.g. Kozen [1985], we obtain a loop rule for our signed random variables, and furthermore, unlike e.g. Kaminski and Katoen [2017], the aert calculus makes do without the need for involved technical machinery keeping track of the integrability of the random variables. Finally, we present case studies, including a formal analysis of a randomized delete-insert-find-any set data structure [Brodal et al. 1996], which yields a constant expected runtime per operation, whereas no deterministic algorithm can achieve this.

We present a new proof rule for verifying lower bounds on quantities of probabilistic programs. Our proof rule is not confined to almost-surely terminating programs -- as is the case for existing rules -- and can be used to establish non-trivial lower bounds on, e.g., termination probabilities and expected values, for possibly divergent probabilistic loops, e.g., the well-known three-dimensional random walk on a lattice.

This paper presents a quantitative program verification infrastructure for discrete probabilistic programs. Our infrastructure can be viewed as the probabilistic analogue of Boogie: its central components are an intermediate verification language (IVL) together with a real-valued logic. Our IVL provides a programming-language-style for expressing verification conditions whose validity implies the correctness of a program under investigation. As our focus is on verifying quantitative properties such as bounds on expected outcomes, expected run-times, or termination probabilities, off-the-shelf IVLs based on Boolean first-order logic do not suffice. Instead, a paradigm shift from the standard Boolean to a real-valued domain is required. Our IVL features quantitative generalizations of standard verification constructs such as assume- and assert-statements. Verification conditions are generated by a weakest-precondition-style semantics, based on our real-valued logic. We show that our verification infrastructure supports natural encodings of numerous verification techniques from the literature. With our SMT-based implementation, we automatically verify a variety of benchmarks. To the best of our knowledge, this establishes the first deductive verification infrastructure for expectation-based reasoning about probabilistic programs.

Arguing for the need to combine declarative and probabilistic programming, Bárány et al. (TODS 2017) recently introduced a probabilistic extension of Datalog as a “purely declarative probabilistic programming language.” We revisit this language and propose a more principled approach towards defining its semantics based on stochastic kernels and Markov processes—standard notions from probability theory. This allows us to extend the semantics to continuous probability distributions, thereby settling an open problem posed by Bárány et al. We show that our semantics is fairly robust, allowing both parallel execution and arbitrary chase orders when evaluating a program. We cast our semantics in the framework of infinite probabilistic databases (Grohe and Lindner, LMCS 2022) and show that the semantics remains meaningful even when the input of a probabilistic Datalog program is an arbitrary probabilistic database.

We study weighted programming, a programming paradigm for specifying mathematical models. More specifically, the weighted programs we investigate are like usual imperative programs with two additional features: (1) nondeterministic branching and (2) weighting execution traces. Weights can be numbers but also other objects like words from an alphabet, polynomials, formal power series, or cardinal numbers. We argue that weighted programming as a paradigm can be used to specify mathematical models beyond probability distributions (as is done in probabilistic programming). We develop weakest-precondition- and weakest-liberal-precondition-style calculi à la Dijkstra for reasoning about mathematical models specified by weighted programs. We present several case studies. For instance, we use weighted programming to model the ski rental problem — an optimization problem. We model not only the optimization problem itself, but also the best deterministic online algorithm for solving this problem as weighted programs. By means of weakest-precondition-style reasoning, we can determine the competitive ratio of the online algorithm on source code level.

We present a novel strongest-postcondition-style calculus for quantitative reasoning about non-deterministic programs with loops. Whereas existing quantitative weakest pre allows reasoning about the value of a quantity after a program terminates on a given initial state, quantitative strongest post allows reasoning about the value that a quantity had before the program was executed and reached a given final state. We show how strongest post enables reasoning about the flow of quantitative information through programs. Similarly to weakest liberal preconditions, we also develop a quantitative strongest liberal post. As a byproduct, we obtain the entirely unexplored notion of strongest liberal postconditions and show how these foreshadow a potential new program logic - partial incorrectness logic - which would be a more liberal version of O'Hearn's recent incorrectness logic.

Abstract We revisit two well-established verification techniques,k-inductionandbounded model checking(BMC), in the more general setting of fixed point theory over complete lattices. Our main theoretical contribution islatticed k-induction, which (i) generalizes classicalk-induction for verifying transition systems, (ii) generalizes Park induction for bounding fixed points of monotonic maps on complete lattices, and (iii) extends from naturalskto transfinite ordinals $$\kappa $$ κ , thus yielding $$\kappa $$ κ -induction. The lattice-theoretic understanding ofk-induction and BMC enables us to apply both techniques to thefully automatic verification of infinite-state probabilistic programs. Our prototypical implementation manages to automatically verify non-trivial specifications for probabilistic programs taken from the literature that—using existing techniques—cannot be verified without synthesizing a stronger inductive invariant first.

Sensitivity properties describe how changes to the input of a program affect the output, typically by upper bounding the distance between the outputs of two runs by a monotone function of the distance between the corresponding inputs. When programs are probabilistic, the distance between outputs is a distance between distributions. The Kantorovich lifting provides a general way of defining a distance between distributions by lifting the distance of the underlying sample space; by choosing an appropriate distance on the base space, one can recover other usual probabilistic distances, such as the Total Variation distance. We develop a relational pre-expectation calculus to upper bound the Kantorovich distance between two executions of a probabilistic program. We illustrate our methods by proving algorithmic stability of a machine learning algorithm, convergence of a reinforcement learning algorithm, and fast mixing for card shuffling algorithms. We also consider some extensions: using our calculus to show convergence of Markov chains to the uniform distribution over states and an asynchronous extension to reason about pairs of program executions with different control flow.

We study a syntax for specifying quantitative assertions —functions mapping program states to numbers—for probabilistic program verification. We prove that our syntax is expressive in the following sense: Given any probabilistic program C , if a function f is expressible in our syntax, then the function mapping each initial state σ to the expected value of evaluated in the final states reached after termination of C on σ (also called the weakest preexpectation wp[ C ]( f )) is also expressible in our syntax. As a consequence, we obtain a relatively complete verification system for reasoning about expected values and probabilities in the sense of Cook: Apart from proving a single inequality between two functions given by syntactic expressions in our language, given f , g , and C , we can check whether g ≼ wp[ C ]( f ).

IC3 has been a leap forward in symbolic model checking. This paper proposes PrIC3 (pronounced pricy-three), a conservative extension of IC3 to symbolic model checking of MDPs. Our main focus is to develop the theory underlying PrIC3. Alongside, we present a first implementation of PrIC3 including the key ingredients from IC3 such as generalization, repushing, and propagation.

Markov decision processes are widely used for planning and verification in settings that combine controllable or adversarial choices with probabilistic behaviour. The standard analysis algorithm, value iteration, only provides lower bounds on infinite-horizon probabilities and rewards. Two “sound” variations, which also deliver an upper bound , have recently appeared. In this paper, we present a new sound approach that leverages value iteration’s ability to usually deliver good lower bounds: we obtain a lower bound via standard value iteration, use the result to “guess” an upper bound, and prove the latter’s correctness. We present this optimistic value iteration approach for computing reachability probabilities as well as expected rewards. It is easy to implement and performs well, as we show via an extensive experimental evaluation using our implementation within the mcsta model checker of the Modest Toolset .

Arguing for the need to combine declarative and probabilistic programming, Bárány et al. (TODS 2017) recently introduced a probabilistic extension of Datalog as a "purely declarative probabilistic programming language." We revisit this language and propose a more foundational approach towards defining its semantics. It is based on standard notions from probability theory known as stochastic kernels and Markov processes. This allows us to extend the semantics to continuous probability distributions, thereby settling an open problem posed by Bárány et al. We show that our semantics is fairly robust, allowing both parallel execution and arbitrary chase orders when evaluating a program. We cast our semantics in the framework of infinite probabilistic databases (Grohe and Lindner, ICDT 2020), and we show that the semantics remains meaningful even when the input of a probabilistic Datalog program is an arbitrary probabilistic database.

We present a new inductive rule for verifying lower bounds on expected values of random variables after execution of probabilistic loops as well as on their expected runtimes. Our rule issimplein the sense that loop body semantics need to be applied only finitely often in order to verify that the candidates are indeed lower bounds. In particular, it is not necessary to find the limit of a sequence as in many previous rules.

We present quantitative separation logic (QSL). In contrast to classical separation logic, QSL employs quantities which evaluate to real numbers instead of predicates which evaluate to Boolean values. The connectives of classical separation logic, separating conjunction and separating implication, are lifted from predicates to quantities. This extension is conservative: Both connectives are backward compatible to their classical analogs and obey the same laws, e.g. modus ponens, adjointness, etc. Furthermore, we develop a weakest precondition calculus for quantitative reasoning about probabilistic pointer programs in QSL. This calculus is a conservative extension of both Ishtiaq’s, O’Hearn’s and Reynolds’ separation logic for heap-manipulating programs and Kozen’s / McIver and Morgan’s weakest preexpectations for probabilistic programs. Soundness is proven with respect to an operational semantics based on Markov decision processes. Our calculus preserves O’Hearn’s frame rule , which enables local reasoning. We demonstrate that our calculus enables reasoning about quantities such as the probability of terminating with an empty heap, the probability of reaching a certain array permutation, or the expected length of a list.

Bayesian networks (BNs) are probabilistic graphical models for describing complex joint probability distributions. The main problem for BNs is inference: Determine the probability of an event given observed evidence. Since exact inference is often infeasible for large BNs, popular approximate inference methods rely on sampling. We study the problem of determining the expected time to obtain a single valid sample from a BN. To this end, we translate the BN together with observations into a probabilistic program. We provide proof rules that yield the exact expected runtime of this program in a fully automated fashion. We implemented our approach and successfully analyzed various real–world BNs taken from the Bayesian network repository.

This article presents a wp--style calculus for obtaining bounds on the expected runtime of randomized algorithms. Its application includes determining the (possibly infinite) expected termination time of a randomized algorithm and proving positive almost--sure termination—does a program terminate with probability one in finite expected time? We provide several proof rules for bounding the runtime of loops, and prove the soundness of the approach with respect to a simple operational model. We show that our approach is a conservative extension of Nielson’s approach for reasoning about the runtime of deterministic programs. We analyze the expected runtime of some example programs including the coupon collector’s problem, a one--dimensional random walk and a randomized binary search.

We present a new proof rule for proving almost-sure termination of probabilistic programs, including those that contain demonic non-determinism. An important question for a probabilistic program is whether the probability mass of all its diverging runs is zero, that is that it terminates "almost surely". Proving that can be hard, and this paper presents a new method for doing so. It applies directly to the program's source code, even if the program contains demonic choice. Like others, we use variant functions (a.k.a. "super-martingales") that are real-valued and decrease randomly on each loop iteration; but our key innovation is that the amount as well as the probability of the decrease are parametric. We prove the soundness of the new rule, indicate where its applicability goes beyond existing rules, and explain its connection to classical results on denumerable (non-demonic) Markov chains.

This article investigates the semantic intricacies of conditioning, a main feature in probabilistic programming. Our study is based on an extension of the imperative probabilistic guarded command language pGCL with conditioning. We provide a weakest precondition (wp) semantics and an operational semantics. To deal with possibly diverging program behavior, we consider liberal preconditions. We show that diverging program behavior plays a key role when defining conditioning. We establish that weakest preconditions coincide with conditional expected rewards in Markov chains—the operational semantics—and that the wp-semantics conservatively extends the existing semantics of pGCL (without conditioning). An extension of these results with nondeterminism turns out to be problematic: although an operational semantics using Markov decision processes is rather straightforward, we show that providing an inductive wp-semantics in this setting is impossible. Finally, we present two program transformations that eliminate conditioning from any program. The first transformation hoists conditioning while updating the probabilistic choices in the program, while the second transformation replaces conditioning—in the same vein as rejection sampling—by a program with loops. In addition, we present a last program transformation that replaces an independent identically distributed loop with conditioning.

We present a weakest-precondition-style calculus for reasoning about the expected values (pre-expectations) of mixed-sign unbounded random variables after execution of a probabilistic program. The semantics of a while-loop is defined as the limit of iteratively applying a functional to a zero-element just as in the traditional weakest pre-expectation calculus, even though a standard least fixed point argument is not applicable in our semantics. A striking feature of our semantics is that it is always well-defined, even if the expected values do not exist. We show that the calculus is sound and allows for compositional reasoning. Furthermore, we present an invariant-based approach for reasoning about pre-expectations of loops.

This paper presents a wp--style calculus for obtaining expectations on the outcomes of (mutually) recursive probabilistic programs. We provide several proof rules to derive one-- and two--sided bounds for such expectations, and show the soundness of our wp--calculus with respect to a probabilistic pushdown automaton semantics. We also give a wp--style calculus for obtaining bounds on the expected runtime of recursive programs that can be used to determine the (possibly infinite) time until termination of such programs.

Recent advances in symbolic execution have proposed a number of promising solutions to automatically achieve high-coverage and explore non-determinism during testing. This attractive testing technique of unmodified software assists developers with concrete inputs and deterministic schedules to analyze erroneous program paths. Being able to handle complex systems' software, these tools only consider single software instances and not their distributed execution which forms the core of distributed systems. The step to symbolic distributed execution is however steep, posing two core challenges: (1) additional state growth and (2) the state intra-dependencies resulting from communication. In this paper, we present SDE - a novel approach enabling scalable symbolic execution of distributed systems. The key contribution of our work is two-fold. First, we generalize the problem space of SDE and develop an algorithm significantly eliminating redundant states during testing. The key idea is to benefit from the nodes' local communication minimizing the number of states representing the distributed execution. Second, we demonstrate the practical applicability of SDE in testing with three sensor net scenarios running Contiki OS.