A FOOLish Encoding of the Next State Relations of Imperative Programs

  • Evgenii KotelnikovEmail author
  • Laura Kovács
  • Andrei Voronkov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10900)


Automated theorem provers are routinely used in program analysis and verification for checking program properties. These properties are translated from program fragments to formulas expressed in the logic supported by the theorem prover. Such translations can be complex and require deep knowledge of how theorem provers work in order for the prover to succeed on the translated formulas. Our previous work introduced FOOL, a modification of first-order logic that extends it with syntactical constructs resembling features of programming languages. One can express program properties directly in FOOL and leave translations to plain first-order logic to the theorem prover. In this paper we present a FOOL encoding of the next state relations of imperative programs. Based on this encoding we implement a translation of imperative programs annotated with their pre- and post-conditions to partial correctness properties of these programs. We present experimental results that demonstrate that program properties translated using our method can be efficiently checked by the first-order theorem prover Vampire.



This work has been supported by the ERC Starting Grant 2014 SYMCAR 639270, the Wallenberg Academy Fellowship 2014, the Swedish VR grant D0497701, the Austrian research project FWF S11409-N23 and the EPSRC grant EP/P03408X/1-QuTie.


  1. 1.
    Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard: version 2.0. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa (2010).
  3. 3.
    Chen, Y.T., Furia, C.A.: Triggerless happy. In: Polikarpova, N., Schneider, S. (eds.) IFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10510, pp. 295–311. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3—where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotelnikov, E., Kovács, L., Reger, G., Voronkov, A.: The vampire and the FOOL. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Certified Programs, pp. 37–48 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kotelnikov, E., Kovács, L., Suda, M., Voronkov, A.: A clausal normal form translation for FOOL. In: Benzmüller, C., Sutcliffe, G., Rojas, R. (eds) 2nd Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence, GCAI 2016. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 41, pp. 53–71. EasyChair (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotelnikov, E., Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: A first class Boolean sort in first-order theorem proving and TPTP. In: Kerber, M., Carette, J., Kaliszyk, C., Rabe, F., Sorge, V. (eds.) CICM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9150, pp. 71–86. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kovács, L., Robillard, S., Voronkov, A.: Coming to terms with quantified reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 44th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2017, pp. 260–270 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: First-order theorem proving and Vampire. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 1–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Efficient weakest preconditions. Inf. Process. Lett. 93(6), 281–288 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: This is Boogie 2. Manuscr. KRML, 178(131) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reger, G., Bjørner, N., Suda, M., Voronkov, A.: AVATAR modulo theories. In: 2nd Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence, GCAI 2016, pp. 39–52 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stump, A., Sutcliffe, G., Tinelli, C.: StarExec: a cross-community infrastructure for logic solving. In: Demri, S., Kapur, D., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) IJCAR 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8562, pp. 367–373. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure - from CNF to TH0, TPTP v6.4.0. J. Autom. Reason. 59(4), 483–502 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutcliffe, G., Schulz, S., Claessen, K., Baumgartner, P.: The TPTP typed first-order form with arithmetic. In: Bjørner, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7180, pp. 406–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Voronkov, A.: AVATAR: the architecture for first-order theorem provers. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 696–710. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgenii Kotelnikov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Kovács
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrei Voronkov
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.TU WienViennaAustria
  3. 3.The University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.EasyChairManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations