Abstract Lagrangian-based duality, traditionally applied in optimization, has recently been generalized to serve as the basis for a unifying framework for primal-dual search algorithms in the context of program verification and automated reasoning. In this paper, we analyze Quantified Satisfiability Modulo Theories (QSMT) algorithms using this framework. Interestingly, our Lagrangian-based analysis reveals that three recently proposed algorithms for quantified linear real arithmetic (LRA) share a common structure, and that their main differences lie in the approach to a certain problem—model-based projection for $$\exists \forall $$ ∃ ∀ -formulas. Moreover, in the course of this Lagrangian-based analysis, we identify an issue with the progress property of one of the algorithms, propose a way to fix the issue, and experimentally demonstrate that the proposed fix improves performance.

We propose an incremental approach for safety proofs that decomposes a proof with a complex inductive invariant into a sequence of simpler proof steps. Our proof system combines rules for (i) forward reasoning using inductive invariants, (ii) backward reasoning using inductive invariants of a time-reversed system, and (iii) prophecy steps that add witnesses for existentially quantified properties. We prove each rule sound and give a construction that recovers a single safe inductive invariant from an incremental proof. The construction of the invariant demonstrates the increased complexity of a single inductive invariant compared to the invariant formulas used in an incremental proof, which may have simpler Boolean structures and fewer quantifiers and quantifier alternations. Under natural restrictions on the available invariant formulas, each proof rule strictly increases proof power. That is, each rule allows to prove more safety problems with the same set of formulas. Thus, the incremental approach is able to reduce the search space of invariant formulas needed to prove safety of a given system. A case study on Paxos, several of its variants, and Raft demonstrates that forward-backward steps can remove complex Boolean structure while prophecy eliminates quantifiers and quantifier alternations.

Many algorithms in verification and automated reasoning leverage some form of duality between proofs and refutations or counterexamples. In most cases, duality is only used as an intuition that helps in understanding the algorithms and is not formalized. In other cases, duality is used explicitly, but in a specially tailored way that does not generalize to other problems. In this paper we propose a unified primal-dual framework for designing verification algorithms that leverage duality. To that end, we generalize the concept of a Lagrangian that is commonly used in linear programming and optimization to capture the domains considered in verification problems, which are usually discrete, e.g., powersets of states, predicates, ranking functions, etc. A Lagrangian then induces a primal problem and a dual problem. We devise an abstract primal-dual procedure that simultaneously searches for a primal solution and a dual solution, where the two searches guide each other. We provide sufficient conditions that ensure that the procedure makes progress under certain monotonicity assumptions on the Lagrangian. We show that many existing algorithms in program analysis, verification, and automated reasoning can be derived from our algorithmic framework with a suitable choice of Lagrangian. The Lagrangian-based formulation sheds new light on various characteristics of these algorithms, such as the ingredients they use to ensure monotonicity and guarantee progress. We further use our framework to develop a new validity checking algorithm for fixpoint logic over quantified linear arithmetic. Our prototype achieves promising results and in some cases solves instances that are not solved by state-of-the-art techniques.

Abstract This paper lays a practical foundation for using abstract interpretation with an abstract domain that consists of sets of quantified first-order logic formulas. This abstract domain seems infeasible at first sight due to the complexity of the formulas involved and the enormous size of sets of formulas (abstract elements). We introduce an efficient representation of abstract elements, which eliminates redundancies based on a novel syntactic subsumption relation that under-approximates semantic entailment. We develop algorithms and data structures to efficiently compute the join of an abstract element with the abstraction of a concrete state, operating on the representation of abstract elements. To demonstrate feasibility of the domain, we use our data structures and algorithms to implement a symbolic abstraction algorithm that computes the least fixpoint of the best abstract transformer of a transition system, which corresponds to the strongest inductive invariant. We succeed at finding, for example, the least fixpoint for Paxos (which in our representation has 1,438 formulas with $$\forall ^*\exists ^*\forall ^*$$ ∀ ∗ ∃ ∗ ∀ ∗ quantification) in time comparable to state-of-the-art property-directed approaches.

Abstract is an open-source tool for specifying transition systems in first-order logic and reasoning about them. is particularly suitable for analyzing and verifying distributed algorithms. implements key functionalities needed for safety verification and provides flexible interfaces that make it useful not only as a verification tool but also as a research platform for developing verification techniques, and in particular invariant inference algorithms. Moreover, the input language is both simple and general, and the repository includes several dozen benchmarks—transition systems that model a wide range of distributed and concurrent algorithms. has supported several recent research efforts that benefited from its development framework and benchmark set.

Formal verification is a promising approach to eliminate bugs at compile time, before they ship. Indeed, our community has verified a wide variety of system software. However, much of this success has required heroic developer effort, relied on bespoke logics for individual domains, or sacrificed expressiveness for powerful proof automation.

First-order logic, and quantifiers in particular, are widely used in deductive verification of programs and systems. Quantifiers are essential for describing systems with unbounded domains, but prove difficult for automated solvers. Significant effort has been dedicated to finding quantifier instantiations that establish unsatisfiability of quantified formulas, thus ensuring validity of a system’s verification conditions. However, in many cases the formulas are satisfiable—this is often the case in intermediate steps of the verification process, e.g., when an invariant is not yet inductive. For such cases, existing tools are limited to finding finite models as counterexamples. Yet, some quantified formulas are satisfiable but only have infinite models, which current solvers are unable to find. Such infinite counter-models are especially typical when first-order logic is used to approximate the natural numbers, the integers, or other inductive definitions such as linked lists, which is common in deductive verification. The inability of solvers to find infinite models makes them diverge in these cases, providing little feedback to the user as they try to make progress in their verification attempts. In this paper, we tackle the problem of finding such infinite models, specifically, finite representations thereof that can be presented to the user of a deductive verification tool. These models give insight into the verification failure, and allow the user to identify and fix bugs in the modeling of the system and its properties. Our approach consists of three parts. First, we introduce symbolic structures as a way to represent certain infinite models, and show they admit an efficient model checking procedure. Second, we describe an effective model finding procedure that symbolically explores a given (possibly infinite) family of symbolic structures in search of an infinite model for a given formula. Finally, we identify a new decidable fragment of first-order logic that extends and subsumes the many-sorted variant of EPR, where satisfiable formulas always have a model representable by a symbolic structure within a known family, making our model finding procedure a decision procedure for that fragment. We evaluate our approach on examples from the domains of distributed consensus protocols and of heapmanipulating programs (specifically, linked lists). Our implementation quickly finds infinite counter-models that demonstrate the source of verification failures in a simple way, while state-of-the-art SMT solvers and theorem provers such as Z3, cvc5, and Vampire diverge or return “unknown”.

Optimizing quantum circuits is challenging due to the very large search space of functionally equivalent circuits and the necessity of applying transformations that temporarily decrease performance to achieve a final performance improvement. This paper presents Quarl, a learning-based quantum circuit optimizer. Applying reinforcement learning (RL) to quantum circuit optimization raises two main challenges: the large and varying action space and the non-uniform state representation. Quarl addresses these issues with a novel neural architecture and RL-training procedure. Our neural architecture decomposes the action space into two parts and leverages graph neural networks in its state representation, both of which are guided by the intuition that optimization decisions can be mostly guided by local reasoning while allowing global circuit-wide reasoning. Our evaluation shows that Quarl significantly outperforms existing circuit optimizers on almost all benchmark circuits. Surprisingly, Quarl can learn to perform rotation merging—a complex, non-local circuit optimization implemented as a separate pass in existing optimizers.

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.

Existing quantum compilers optimize quantum circuits by applying circuit transformations designed by experts. This approach requires significant manual effort to design and implement circuit transformations for different quantum devices, which use different gate sets, and can miss optimizations that are hard to find manually. We propose Quartz, a quantum circuit superoptimizer that automatically generates and verifies circuit transformations for arbitrary quantum gate sets. For a given gate set, Quartz generates candidate circuit transformations by systematically exploring small circuits and verifies the discovered transformations using an automated theorem prover. To optimize a quantum circuit, Quartz uses a cost-based backtracking search that applies the verified transformations to the circuit. Our evaluation on three popular gate sets shows that Quartz can effectively generate and verify transformations for different gate sets. The generated transformations cover manually designed transformations used by existing optimizers and also include new transformations. Quartz is therefore able to optimize a broad range of circuits for diverse gate sets, outperforming or matching the performance of hand-tuned circuit optimizers.

Abstract We present a PDR/IC3 algorithm for finding inductive invariants with quantifier alternations. We tackle scalability issues that arise due to the large search space of quantified invariants by combining a breadth-first search strategy and a new syntactic form for quantifier-free bodies. The breadth-first strategy prevents inductive generalization from getting stuck in regions of the search space that are expensive to search and focuses instead on lemmas that are easy to discover. The new syntactic form is well-suited to lemmas with quantifier alternations by allowing both limited conjunction and disjunction in the quantifier-free body, while carefully controlling the size of the search space. Combining the breadth-first strategy with the new syntactic form results in useful inductive bias by prioritizing lemmas according to: (i) well-defined syntactic metrics for simple quantifier structures and quantifier-free bodies, and (ii) the empirically useful heuristic of preferring lemmas that are fast to discover. On a benchmark suite of primarily distributed protocols and complex Paxos variants, we demonstrate that our algorithm can solve more of the most complicated examples than state-of-the-art techniques.

We develop a framework for model checking infinite-state systems by automatically augmenting them with auxiliary variables, enabling quantifier-free induction proofs for systems that would otherwise require quantified invariants. We combine this mechanism with a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement scheme for the theory of arrays. Our framework can thus, in many cases, reduce inductive reasoning with quantifiers and arrays to quantifier-free and array-free reasoning. We evaluate the approach on a wide set of benchmarks from the literature. The results show that our implementation often outperforms state-of-the-art tools, demonstrating its practical potential.

Many invariant inference techniques reason simultaneously about states and predicates, and it is well-known that these two kinds of reasoning are in some sense dual to each other. We present a new formal duality between states and predicates, and use it to derive a new primal-dual invariant inference algorithm. The new induction duality is based on a notion of provability by incremental induction that is formally dual to reachability, and the duality is surprisingly symmetric. The symmetry allows us to derive the dual of the well-known Houdini algorithm, and by combining Houdini with its dual image we obtain primal-dual Houdini , the first truly primal-dual invariant inference algorithm. An early prototype of primal-dual Houdini for the domain of distributed protocol verification can handle difficult benchmarks from the literature.

We consider the problem of program synthesis from input-output examples via stochastic search. We identify a robust feature of stochastic synthesis: The search often progresses through a series of discrete plateaus. We observe that the distribution of synthesis times is often heavy-tailed and analyze how these distributions arise. Based on these insights, we present an algorithm that speeds up synthesis by an order of magnitude over the naive algorithm currently used in practice. Our experimental results are obtained in part using a new program synthesis benchmark for superoptimization distilled from widely used production code.

Abstract We develop a framework for model checking infinite-state systems by automatically augmenting them with auxiliary variables, enabling quantifier-free induction proofs for systems that would otherwise require quantified invariants. We combine this mechanism with a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement scheme for the theory of arrays. Our framework can thus, in many cases, reduce inductive reasoning with quantifiers and arrays to quantifier-free and array-free reasoning. We evaluate the approach on a wide set of benchmarks from the literature. The results show that our implementation often outperforms state-of-the-art tools, demonstrating its practical potential.

Abstract Various verification techniques for temporal properties transform temporal verification to safety verification. For infinite-state systems, these transformations are inherently imprecise. That is, for some instances, the temporal property holds, but the resulting safety property does not. This paper introduces a mechanism for tackling this imprecision. This mechanism, which we call temporal prophecy, is inspired by prophecy variables. Temporal prophecy refines an infinite-state system using first-order linear temporal logic formulas, via a suitable tableau construction. For a specific liveness-to-safety transformation based on first-order logic, we show that using temporal prophecy strictly increases the precision. Furthermore, temporal prophecy leads to robustness of the proof method, which is manifested by a cut elimination theorem. We integrate our approach into the Ivy deductive verification system, and show that it can handle challenging temporal verification examples.

Ivy is a multi-modal verification tool for correct design and implementation of distributed protocols and algorithms, supporting modular specification, implementation and proof. Ivy supports proving safety and liveness properties of parameterized and infinite-state systems via three modes: deductive verification using an SMT solver, abstraction and model checking, and manual proofs using natural deduction. It supports light-weight formal methods via compositional specification-based testing and bounded model checking. Ivy can extract executable distributed programs by translation to efficient C++ code. It is designed to support decidable automated reasoning, to improve proof stability and to provide transparency in the case of proof failures. For this purpose, it presents concrete finite counterexamples, automatically audits proofs for decidability of verification conditions, and provides modular hiding of theories.

Quantified first-order formulas, often with quantifier alternations, are increasingly used in the verification of complex systems. While automated theorem provers for first-order logic are becoming more robust, invariant inference tools that handle quantifiers are currently restricted to purely universal formulas. We define and analyze first-order quantified separators and their application to inferring quantified invariants with alternations. A separator for a given set of positively and negatively labeled structures is a formula that is true on positive structures and false on negative structures. We investigate the problem of finding a separator from the class of formulas in prenex normal form with a bounded number of quantifiers and show this problem is NP-complete by reduction to and from SAT. We also give a practical separation algorithm, which we use to demonstrate the first invariant inference procedure able to infer invariants with quantifier alternations.

Verification of fault-tolerant distributed protocols is an immensely difficult task. Often, in these protocols, thresholds on set cardinalities are used both in the process code and in its correctness proof, e.g., a process can perform an action only if it has received an acknowledgment from at least half of its peers. Verification of threshold-based protocols is extremely challenging as it involves two kinds of reasoning: first-order reasoning about the unbounded state of the protocol, together with reasoning about sets and cardinalities. In this work, we develop a new methodology for decomposing the verification task of such protocols into two decidable logics: EPR and BAPA. Our key insight is that such protocols use thresholds in a restricted way as a means to obtain certain properties of “intersection” between sets. We define a language for expressing such properties, and present two translations: to EPR and BAPA. The EPR translation allows verifying the protocol while assuming these properties, and the BAPA translation allows verifying the correctness of the properties. We further develop an algorithm for automatically generating the properties needed for verifying a given protocol, facilitating fully automated deductive verification. Using this technique we have verified several challenging protocols, including Byzantine one-step consensus, hybrid reliable broadcast and fast Byzantine Paxos.

We consider the task of mapping pseudocode to executable code, assuming a one-to-one correspondence between lines of pseudocode and lines of code. Given test cases as a mechanism to validate programs, we search over the space of possible translations of the pseudocode to find a program that compiles and passes the test cases. While performing a best-first search, compilation errors constitute 88.7% of program failures. To better guide this search, we learn to predict the line of the program responsible for the failure and focus search over alternative translations of the pseudocode for that line. For evaluation, we collected the SPoC dataset (Search-based Pseudocode to Code) containing 18,356 C++ programs with human-authored pseudocode and test cases. Under a budget of 100 program compilations, performing search improves the synthesis success rate over using the top-one translation of the pseudocode from 25.6% to 44.7%.

We introduce a robust semantics-driven technique for program equivalence checking. Given two functions we find a trace alignment over a set of concrete executions of both programs and construct a product program particularly amenable to checking equivalence.

Existing deep neural network (DNN) frameworks optimize the computation graph of a DNN by applying graph transformations manually designed by human experts. This approach misses possible graph optimizations and is difficult to scale, as new DNN operators are introduced on a regular basis.

We consider the problem of checking whether a proposed invariant $\varphi$ expressed in first-order logic with quantifier alternation is inductive, i.e. preserved by a piece of code. While the problem is undecidable, modern SMT solvers can sometimes solve it automatically. However, they employ powerful quantifier instantiation methods that may diverge, especially when $\varphi$ is not preserved. A notable difficulty arises due to counterexamples of infinite size. This paper studies Bounded-Horizon instantiation, a natural method for guaranteeing the termination of SMT solvers. The method bounds the depth of terms used in the quantifier instantiation process. We show that this method is surprisingly powerful for checking quantified invariants in uninterpreted domains. Furthermore, by producing partial models it can help the user diagnose the case when $\varphi$ is not inductive, especially when the underlying reason is the existence of infinite counterexamples. Our main technical result is that Bounded-Horizon is at least as powerful as instrumentation, which is a manual method to guarantee convergence of the solver by modifying the program so that it admits a purely universal invariant. We show that with a bound of 1 we can simulate a natural class of instrumentations, without the need to modify the code and in a fully automatic way. We also report on a prototype implementation on top of Z3, which we used to verify several examples by Bounded-Horizon of bound 1.

Formal verification of infinite-state systems, and distributed systems in particular, is a long standing research goal. In the deductive verification approach, the programmer provides inductive invariants and pre/post specifications of procedures, reducing the verification problem to checking validity of logical verification conditions. This check is often performed by automated theorem provers and SMT solvers, substantially increasing productivity in the verification of complex systems. However, the unpredictability of automated provers presents a major hurdle to usability of these tools. This problem is particularly acute in case of provers that handle undecidable logics, for example, first-order logic with quantifiers and theories such as arithmetic. The resulting extreme sensitivity to minor changes has a strong negative impact on the convergence of the overall proof effort.

Various verification techniques for temporal properties transform temporal verification to safety verification. For infinite-state systems, these transformations are inherently imprecise. That is, for some instances, the temporal property holds, but the resulting safety property does not. This paper introduces a mechanism for tackling this imprecision. This mechanism, which we call temporal prophecy, is inspired by prophecy variables. Temporal prophecy refines an infinite-state system using first-order linear temporal logic formulas, via a suitable tableau construction. For a specific liveness-to-safety transformation based on first-order logic, we show that using temporal prophecy strictly increases the precision. Furthermore, temporal prophecy leads to robustness of the proof method, which is manifested by a cut elimination theorem. We integrate our approach into the Ivy deductive verification system, and show that it can handle challenging temporal verification examples.

Proof automation can substantially increase productivity in formal verification of complex systems. However, unpredictablility of automated provers in handling quantified formulas presents a major hurdle to usability of these tools. We propose to solve this problem not by improving the provers, but by using a modular proof methodology that allows us to produce decidable verification conditions. Decidability greatly improves predictability of proof automation, resulting in a more practical verification approach. We apply this methodology to develop verified implementations of distributed protocols, demonstrating its effectiveness.

We develop a new technique for verifying temporal properties of infinite-state (distributed) systems. The main idea is to reduce the temporal verification problem to the problem of verifying the safety of infinite-state systems expressed in first-order logic. This allows to leverage existing techniques for safety verification to verify temporal properties of interesting distributed protocols, including some that have not been mechanically verified before. We model infinite-state systems using first-order logic, and use first-order temporal logic (FO-LTL) to specify temporal properties. This general formalism allows to naturally model distributed systems, while supporting both unbounded-parallelism (where the system is allowed to dynamically create processes), and infinite-state per process. The traditional approach for verifying temporal properties of infinite-state systems employs well-founded relations (e.g. using linear arithmetic ranking functions). In contrast, our approach is based the idea of fair cycle detection. In finite-state systems, temporal verification can always be reduced to fair cycle detection (a system contains a fair cycle if it revisits a state after satisfying all fairness constraints). However, with both infinitely many states and infinitely many fairness constraints, a straightforward reduction to fair cycle detection is unsound. To regain soundness, we augment the infinite-state transition system by a dynamically computed finite set, that exploits the locality of transitions. This set lets us define a form of fair cycle detection that is sound in the presence of both infinitely many states, and infinitely many fairness constraints. Our approach allows a new style of temporal verification that does not explicitly involve ranking functions. This fits well with pure first-order verification which does not explicitly reason about numerical values. In particular, it can be used with effectively propositional first-order logic (EPR), in which case checking verification conditions is decidable. We applied our technique to verify temporal properties of several interesting protocols. To the best of our knowledge, we have obtained the first mechanized liveness proof for both TLB Shootdown, and Stoppable Paxos.

Distributed protocols such as Paxos play an important role in many computer systems. Therefore, a bug in a distributed protocol may have tremendous effects. Accordingly, a lot of effort has been invested in verifying such protocols. However, checking invariants of such protocols is undecidable and hard in practice, as it requires reasoning about an unbounded number of nodes and messages. Moreover, protocol actions and invariants involve both quantifier alternations and higher-order concepts such as set cardinalities and arithmetic. This paper makes a step towards automatic verification of such protocols. We aim at a technique that can verify correct protocols and identify bugs in incorrect protocols. To this end, we develop a methodology for deductive verification based on effectively propositional logic (EPR)—a decidable fragment of first-order logic (also known as the Bernays-Schönfinkel-Ramsey class). In addition to decidability, EPR also enjoys the finite model property, allowing to display violations as finite structures which are intuitive for users. Our methodology involves modeling protocols using general (uninterpreted) first-order logic, and then systematically transforming the model to obtain a model and an inductive invariant that are decidable to check. The steps of the transformations are also mechanically checked, ensuring the soundness of the method. We have used our methodology to verify the safety of Paxos, and several of its variants, including Multi-Paxos, Vertical Paxos, Fast Paxos, Flexible Paxos and Stoppable Paxos. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to verify these protocols using a decidable logic, and the first formal verification of Vertical Paxos, Fast Paxos and Stoppable Paxos.

Despite several decades of research, the problem of formal verification of infinite-state systems has resisted effective automation. We describe a system --- Ivy --- for interactively verifying safety of infinite-state systems. Ivy's key principle is that whenever verification fails, Ivy graphically displays a concrete counterexample to induction. The user then interactively guides generalization from this counterexample. This process continues until an inductive invariant is found. Ivy searches for universally quantified invariants, and uses a restricted modeling language. This ensures that all verification conditions can be checked algorithmically. All user interactions are performed using graphical models, easing the user's task. We describe our initial experience with verifying several distributed protocols.

Induction is a successful approach for verification of hardware and software systems. A common practice is to model a system using logical formulas, and then use a decision procedure to verify that some logical formula is an inductive safety invariant for the system. A key ingredient in this approach is coming up with the inductive invariant, which is known as invariant inference. This is a major difficulty, and it is often left for humans or addressed by sound but incomplete abstract interpretation. This paper is motivated by the problem of inductive invariants in shape analysis and in distributed protocols. This paper approaches the general problem of inferring first-order inductive invariants by restricting the language L of candidate invariants. Notice that the problem of invariant inference in a restricted language L differs from the safety problem, since a system may be safe and still not have any inductive invariant in L that proves safety. Clearly, if L is finite (and if testing an inductive invariant is decidable), then inferring invariants in L is decidable. This paper presents some interesting cases when inferring inductive invariants in L is decidable even when L is an infinite language of universal formulas. Decidability is obtained by restricting L and defining a suitable well-quasi-order on the state space. We also present some undecidability results that show that our restrictions are necessary. We further present a framework for systematically constructing infinite languages while keeping the invariant inference problem decidable. We illustrate our approach by showing the decidability of inferring invariants for programs manipulating linked-lists, and for distributed protocols.

Software-defined networking (SDN) is a new paradigm for operating and managing computer networks. SDN enables logically-centralized control over network devices through a "controller" --- software that operates independently of the network hardware. Network operators can run both in-house and third-party SDN programs on top of the controller, e.g., to specify routing and access control policies.