Alex Sanchez-Stern

Formally verifying system properties is one of the most effective ways of improving system quality, but its high manual effort requirements often render it prohibitively expensive. Tools that automate formal verification by learning from proof corpora to synthesize proofs have just begun to show their promise. These tools are effective because of the richness of the data the proof corpora contain. This richness comes from the stylistic conventions followed by communities of proof developers, together with the powerful logical systems beneath proof assistants. However, this richness remains underexploited, with most work thus far focusing on architecture rather than on how to make the most of the proof data. This article systematically explores how to most effectively exploit one aspect of that proof data: identifiers.We develop the Passport approach, a method for enriching the predictive Coq model used by an existing proof-synthesis tool with three new encoding mechanisms for identifiers: category vocabulary indexing, subword sequence modeling, and path elaboration. We evaluate our approach’s enrichment effect on three existing base tools: ASTactic, Tac, and Tok. In head-to-head comparisons, Passport automatically proves 29% more theorems than the best-performing of these base tools. Combining the three tools enhanced by the Passport approach automatically proves 38% more theorems than combining the three base tools. Finally, together, these base tools and their enhanced versions prove 45% more theorems than the combined base tools. Overall, our findings suggest that modeling identifiers can play a significant role in improving proof synthesis, leading to higher-quality software.

Formal verification is an effective but extremely work-intensive method of improving software quality. Verifying the correctness of software systems often requires significantly more effort than implementing them in the first place, despite the existence of proof assistants, such as Coq, aiding the process. Recent work has aimed to fully automate the synthesis of formal verification proofs, but little tool support exists for practitioners. This paper presents oofster, a web-based tool aimed at assisting developers with the formal verification process via proof synthesis. oofster inputs a Coq theorem specifying a property of a software system and attempts to automatically synthesize a formal proof of the correctness of that property. When it is unable to produce a proof, oofster outputs the proof-space search tree its synthesis explored, which can guide the developer to provide a hint to enable oofster to synthesize the proof. oofster runs online at https://proofster.cs.umass.edu/ and a video demonstrating oofster is available at https://youtu.be/xQAi66IRfwI/.

Interactive proofs of theorems often require auxiliary helper lemmas to prove the desired theorem. Existing approaches for automatically synthesizing helper lemmas fall into two broad categories. Some approaches are goal-directed, producing lemmas specifically to help a user make progress from a given proof state, but they have limited expressiveness in terms of the lemmas that can be produced. Other approaches are highly expressive, able to generate arbitrary lemmas from a given grammar, but they are completely undirected and hence not amenable to interactive usage. In this paper, we develop an approach to lemma synthesis that is both goal-directed and expressive. The key novelty is a technique for reducing lemma synthesis to a data-driven program synthesis problem, whereby examples for synthesis are generated from the current proof state. We also describe a technique to systematically introduce new variables for lemma synthesis, as well as techniques for filtering and ranking candidate lemmas for presentation to the user. We implement these ideas in a tool called lfind, which can be run as a Coq tactic. In an evaluation on four benchmark suites, lfind produces useful lemmas in 68% of the cases where a human prover used a lemma to make progress. In these cases lfind synthesizes a lemma that either enables a fully automated proof of the original goal or that matches the human-provided lemma.