Differential privacy is the standard method for privacy-preserving data analysis. The importance of having strong guarantees on the reliability of implementations of differentially private algorithms is widely recognized and has sparked fruitful research on formal methods. However, the design patterns and language features used in modern DP libraries as well as the classes of guarantees that the library designers wish to establish often fall outside of the scope of previous verification approaches. We introduce a program logic suitable for verifying differentially private implementations written in complex, general-purpose programming languages. Our logic has first-class support for reasoning about privacy budgets as a separation logic resource. The expressiveness of the logic and the target language allow our approach to handle common programming patterns used in the implementation of libraries for differential privacy, such as privacy filters and caching. While previous work has focused on developing guarantees for programs written in domain-specific languages or for privacy mechanisms in isolation, our logic can reason modularly about primitives, higher-order combinators, and interactive algorithms. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach by implementing a verified library of differential privacy mechanisms, including an online version of the Sparse Vector Technique, as well as a privacy filter inspired by the popular Python library OpenDP, which crucially relies on our ability to handle the combination of randomization, local state, and higher-order functions. We demonstrate that our specifications are general and reusable by instantiating them to verify clients of our library. All of our results have been foundationally verified in the Rocq Prover.

Traditionally, proof systems such as program logics come with two core theorems: soundness and completeness . The role of soundness is obvious: we want to be sure that arguments carried out inside the logic actually lead to correct conclusions. Completeness complements that by ensuring that the logic does not limit expressivity: in principle, any correct result can be obtained within the confines of the logic. This result typically has to be stated relative to the completeness of the assertion logic that is used to reason about pre- and postconditions. Over the past decade, the Iris framework has emerged as a widely used foundation for building separation logics. While Iris-based logics typically come with a soundness proof, none of them have had a proof of completeness. In this paper, we present the first approach for establishing completeness of Iris-based program logics, and we show the generality of our methodology by applying it to a range of different logics described in prior work, including partial and total concurrent separation logics for a higher-order ML-like language, two quantitative logics (for bounding execution time and probabilistic errors), and a relational logic for proving refinement. All our results have been mechanized in the Rocq prover.

Authenticated data structures allow untrusted third parties to carry out operations which produce proofs that can be used to verify an operation's output. Such data structures are challenging to develop and implement correctly. This paper gives a formal proof of security and correctness for a library that generates authenticated versions of data structures automatically. The proof is based on a new relational separation logic for reasoning about programs that use collision-resistant cryptographic hash functions. This logic provides a basis for constructing two semantic models of a type system, which are used to justify how the library makes use of type abstraction to enforce security and correctness. Using these models, we also prove the correctness of several optimizations to the library and then show how optimized, hand-written implementations of authenticated data structures can be soundly linked with automatically generated code. All of the results in this paper have been mechanized in the Rocq prover using the Iris framework.

Properties such as provable security and correctness for randomized programs are naturally expressed relationally as approximate equivalences. As a result, a number of relational program logics have been developed to reason about such approximate equivalences of probabilistic programs. However, existing approximate relational logics are mostly restricted to first-order programs without general state. In this paper we develop Approxis, a higher-order approximate relational separation logic for reasoning about approximate equivalence of programs written in an expressive ML-like language with discrete probabilistic sampling, higher-order functions, and higher-order state. The Approxis logic recasts the concept of error credits in the relational setting to reason about relational approximation, which allows for expressive notions of modularity and composition, a range of new approximate relational rules, and an internalization of a standard limiting argument for showing exact probabilistic equivalences by approximation. We also use Approxis to develop a logical relation model that quantifies over error credits, which can be used to prove exact contextual equivalence . We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach on a range of examples, including the PRP/PRF switching lemma, IND$-CPA security of an encryption scheme, and a collection of rejection samplers. All of the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant and the Iris separation logic framework.

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.

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.

Almost-sure termination is an important correctness property for probabilistic programs, and a number of program logics have been developed for establishing it. However, these logics have mostly been developed for first-order programs written in languages with specific syntactic patterns for looping. In this paper, we consider almost-sure termination for higher-order probabilistic programs with general references. This combination of features allows for recursion and looping to be encoded through a variety of patterns. Therefore, rather than developing proof rules for reasoning about particular recursion patterns, we instead propose an approach based on proving refinement between a higher-order program and a simpler probabilistic model, in such a way that the refinement preserves termination behavior. By proving a refinement, almost-sure termination behavior of the program can then be established by analyzing the simpler model. We present this approach in the form of Caliper , a higher-order separation logic for proving terminationpreserving refinements. Caliper uses probabilistic couplings to carry out relational reasoning between a program and a model. To handle the range of recursion patterns found in higher-order programs, Caliper uses guarded recursion, in particular the principle of Löb induction. A technical novelty is that Caliper does not require the use of transfinite step indexing or other technical restrictions found in prior work on guarded recursion for termination-preservation refinement. We demonstrate the flexibility of this approach by proving almost-sure termination of several examples, including first-order loop constructs, a random list generator, treaps, and a sampler for Galton-Watson trees that uses higher-order store. All the results have been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.

Probabilistic couplings are the foundation for many probabilistic relational program logics and arise when relating random sampling statements across two programs. In relational program logics, this manifests as dedicated coupling rules that, e.g ., say we may reason as if two sampling statements return the same value. However, this approach fundamentally requires aligning or “synchronizing” the sampling statements of the two programs which is not always possible. In this paper, we develop Clutch, a higher-order probabilistic relational separation logic that addresses this issue by supporting asynchronous probabilistic couplings. We use Clutch to develop a logical step-indexed logical relation to reason about contextual refinement and equivalence of higher-order programs written in a rich language with a probabilistic choice operator, higher-order local state, and impredicative polymorphism. Finally, we demonstrate our approach on a number of case studies. All the results that appear in the paper have been formalized in the Coq proof assistant using the Coquelicot library and the Iris separation logic framework.

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.

Expressive state-of-the-art separation logics rely on step-indexing to model semantically complex features and to support modular reasoning about imperative higher-order concurrent and distributed programs. Stepindexing comes, however, with an inherent cost: it restricts the adequacy theorem of program logics to a fairly simple class of safety properties. In this paper, we explore if and how intensional refinement is a viable methodology for strengthening higher-order concurrent (and distributed) separation logic to prove non-trivial safety and liveness properties. Specifically, we introduce Trillium, a language-agnostic separation logic framework for showing intensional refinement relations between traces of a program and a model. We instantiate Trillium with a concurrent language and develop Fairis, a concurrent separation logic, that we use to show liveness properties of concurrent programs under fair scheduling assumptions through a fair liveness-preserving refinement of a model. We also instantiate Trillium with a distributed language and obtain an extension of Aneris, a distributed separation logic, which we use to show refinement relations between distributed systems and TLA + models.

We present the first specification and verification of an implementation of a causally-consistent distributed database that supports modular verification of full functional correctness properties of clients and servers. We specify and reason about the causally-consistent distributed database in Aneris, a higher-order distributed separation logic for an ML-like programming language with network primitives for programming distributed systems. We demonstrate that our specifications are useful, by proving the correctness of small, but tricky, synthetic examples involving causal dependency and by verifying a session manager library implemented on top of the distributed database. We use Aneris's facilities for modular specification and verification to obtain a highly modular development, where each component is verified in isolation, relying only on the specifications (not the implementations) of other components. We have used the Coq formalization of the Aneris logic to formalize all the results presented in the paper in the Coq proof assistant.

We present an expressive information-flow control type system with recursive types, existential types, label polymorphism, and impredicative type polymorphism for a higher-order programming language with higher-order state. We give a novel semantic model of this type system and show that well-typed programs satisfy termination-insensitive noninterference. Our semantic approach supports compositional integration of syntactically well-typed and syntactically ill-typed---but semantically sound---components, which we demonstrate through several interesting examples. We define our model using logical relations on top of the Iris program logic framework; to capture termination-insensitivity, we develop a novel language-agnostic theory of Modal Weakest Preconditions. We formalize all of our theory and examples in the Coq proof assistant.

Abstract Building network-connected programs and distributed systems is a powerful way to provide scalability and availability in a digital, always-connected era. However, with great power comes great complexity. Reasoning about distributed systems is well-known to be difficult. In this paper we present , a novel framework based on separation logic supporting modular, node-local reasoning about concurrent and distributed systems. The logic is higher-order, concurrent, with higher-order store and network sockets, and is fully mechanized in the Coq proof assistant. We use our framework to verify an implementation of a load balancer that uses multi-threading to distribute load amongst multiple servers and an implementation of the two-phase-commit protocol with a replicated logging service as a client. The two examples certify that is well-suited for both horizontal and vertical modular reasoning.