Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building program construction and verification tools from algebraic principles

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

We present a principled modular approach to the development of construction and verification tools for imperative programs, in which the control flow and the data flow are cleanly separated. Our simplest verification tool uses Kleene algebra with tests for the control flow of while-programs and their standard relational semantics for the data flow. It is expanded to a basic program construction tool by adding an operation for the specification statement and one single axiom. To include recursive procedures, Kleene algebras with tests are expanded further to quantales with tests. In this more expressive setting, iteration and the specification statement can be defined explicitly and stronger program transformation rules can be derived. Programming our approach in the Isabelle/HOL interactive theorem prover yields simple lightweight mathematical components as well as program construction and verification tools that are correct by construction themselves. Verification condition generation and program construction rules are based on equational reasoning and supported by powerful Isabelle tactics and automated theorem proving. A number of examples shows our tools at work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aarts CJ (1992) Galois connections presented calculationally

  2. Apt KR, de Boer FS, Olderog E-R (2009) Verification of sequential and concurrent programs. Springer

  3. Armstrong A, Gomes VBF, Struth G (2014) Algebraic principles for rely-guarantee style concurrency verification tools. In: Jones CB, Pihlajasaari P, Sun J (eds) FM 2014. LNCS, vol 8442. Springer, pp 78–93

  4. Armstrong A, Gomes VBF, Struth G (2014) Algebras for program correctness in Isabelle/HOL. In: Höfner P et~al (eds) RAMiCS 2014.LNCS, vol 8428. Springer, pp 49–64

  5. Armstrong A, Gomes VBF, Struth G (2014) Kleene algebras with tests and demonic refinement algebras. Archive of Formal Proofs

  6. Armstrong A, Gomes VBF, Struth G (2014) Lightweight program construction and verification tools in Isabelle/HOL. In: Giannakopoulou D, Salaün G (eds) SEFM 2014, LNCS. Springer, pp 5–19

  7. Angus A, Kozen D (2001) Kleene algebra with tests and program schematology. Technical Report TR2001-1844, Cornell University

  8. Armstrong A, Struth G (2012) Automated reasoning in higher-order regular algebra. In: Griffin T, Kahl W (eds) RAMiCs 2012. LNCS, vol 7560. Springer

  9. Armstrong A, Struth G, Weber T (2013) Kleene algebra. Archive of Formal Proofs

  10. Armstrong A, Struth G, Weber T (2013) Program analysis and verification based on Kleene algebra in Isabelle/HOL. In: Blazy S, Paulin-Mohring C, Pichardie D (eds) ITP 2013. LNCS, vol 7998. Springer, pp 197–212

  11. Armstrong A, Struth G, Weber T (2014) Programming and automating mathematics in the Tarski-Kleene hierarchy. J Log Algebr Methods Programm 83(2): 87–102

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bulwahn L, Krauss A, Haftmann F, Erkök L, Matthews J (2008) Imperative functional programming with Isabelle/HOL. In: Aït Mohamed O, Muñoz CA, Tahar S (eds) TPHOLs 2008. LNCS, vol 5170. Springer, pp 134–149

  13. Braibant T, Pous D (2010) An efficient Coq tactic for deciding Kleene algebras. In K. Kaufmann and L. C. Paulson, editors, ITP 2010, volume 6172 of LNCS, pages 163–178. Springer

  14. Cavalcanti A, Sampaio A, Woodcock J (2003) A refinement strategy for Circus. Formal Aspects Comput 15(2-3): 146–181

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Dongol B, Gomes VBF, Struth G (2015) A program construction and verification tool for separation logic. In: Hinze R, Voigtländer J (eds) MPC 2015. LNCS, vol 9129. Springer, pp 137–158

  16. Desharnais J, Struth G (2011) Internal axioms for domain semirings. Sci Comput Program 76(3): 181–203

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Filliâtre J-C, Paskevich A (2013) Why3—where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen M, Gardner P (eds) ESOP 201. LNCS, vol 7792. Springer, pp 125–128

  18. Haftmann F, Krauss A, Kuncar O, Nipkow T (2013) Data refinement in Isabelle/HOL. In: Blazy S, Paulin-Mohring C, Pichardie D (eds) ITP 2013. LNCS, vol 7998. Springer, pp 100–115

  19. Höfner P, Struth G (2007) Automated reasoning in Kleene algebra. In: Pfenning F (ed) CADE-21. LNCS, vol 4603. Springer, pp 279–294

  20. Kleymann T (1999) Hoare logic and auxiliary variables. Formal Aspect Comput 11(5): 541–566

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Krauss A, Nipkow T (2012) Proof pearl: regular expression equivalence and relation algebra. J Autom Reason 49(1): 95–106

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Kozen D (1997) Kleene algebra with tests. ACM TOPLAS 19(3): 427–443

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Kozen D (2000) On Hoare logic and Kleene algebra with tests. ACM TOCL 1(1): 60–76

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Kozen D (2003) Kleene algebras with tests and the static analysis of programs. Technical Report TR2003-1915, Cornell University

  25. Kozen D, Patron M-C (2000) Certification of compiler optimizations using Kleene algebra with tests. In: Lloyd JW et al (eds) CL 2000. LNAI, vol 1861. Springer, pp 568–582

  26. Kozen D, Smith F (1997) Kleene algebra with tests: completeness and decidability. In: van Dalen D, Bezem M (eds) CSL’96. LNCS, vol 1258. Springer, pp 244–259

  27. Leino RKM (2010) Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke EMC, Voronkov A (eds) LPAR-16, LNCS, vol 6355. Springer, pp 348–370

  28. Meijer E, Fokkinga M, Paterson R (1991) Functional programming with bananas, lenses, envelopes and barbed wire. In: Hughes J (ed) 5th ACM Conf. Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture. LNCS, vol 523. Springer, pp 124–144

  29. Morgan C (1994) Programming from specifications, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall

  30. Möller B, Struth G (2006) Algebras of modal operators and partial correctness. Theor Comput Sci 351(2): 221–239

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Möller B, Struth G (2006) wp is wlp. In: MacCaull W, Winter M, Düntsch I (eds) RelMiCS 2005. LNCS, vol 3929. Springer, pp 200–211

  32. Nipkow T (1998) Winskel is (almost) right: towards a mechanized semantics. Formal Aspects Comput 10(2): 171–186

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Nipkow T (2002) Hoare logics for recursive procedures and unbounded nondeterminism. In: Bradfield JC (ed) CSL 2002. LNCS, vol 2471. Springer, pp 103–119

  34. Nanevski A, Morrisett JG, Birkedal L (2008) Hoare type theory, polymorphism and separation. J Funct Program 18(5-6): 865–911

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Nipkow T, Paulson LC, Wenzel M (2002) Isabelle/HOL—a proof assistant for higher-order logic. LNCS, vol 2283. Springer

  36. Pous D (2013) Kleene algebra with tests and Coq tools for while programs. In: Blazy S, Paulin-Mohring C, Pichardie D (eds) ITP. LNCS, vol 7998. Springer, pp 180–196

  37. Schirmer N (2008) A sequential imperative programming language syntax, semantics, Hoare logics and verification environment. Archive of Formal Proofs

  38. Sternagel C, Thiemann R (2012) Certification of nontermination proofs. In: Beringer L, Felty AP (eds) ITP 2012. LNCS, vol 7406. Springer, pp 266–282

  39. Stoy JE (1977) Denotational semantics: the scott-strachey approach to programming language theory. MIT Press

  40. Schirmer N, Wenzel M (2009) State spaces—the locale way. ENTCS 254: 161–179

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Alasdair Armstrong, Victor B. F. Gomes & Georg Struth

Authors
  1. Alasdair Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victor B. F. Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Struth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Struth.

Additional information

Communicated by Dimitra Giannakopoulou, Gwen Salaün, and Michael Butler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armstrong, A., Gomes, V.B.F. & Struth, G. Building program construction and verification tools from algebraic principles. Form Asp Comp 28, 265–293 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-015-0343-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-015-0343-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation