Verifying Haskell programs by combining testing, model checking and interactive theorem proving

Dybjer, Peter; Qiao, Haiyan; Takeyama, Makoto

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2004.07.002

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the Programmatica tool compiles away type classes and nested pattern matching, features retained by hs-to-coq. Agda 1 Dyber, Haiyan, and Takeyama [11] developed a tool for automatically translating Haskell programs to the Agda/Alfa proof assistant. Their solution to the problem of partial pattern matching is to synthesize predicates that describe the domain of functions.…”

Section: Haskell and Dependently-typed Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Total Haskell is reasonable Coq

Spector-Zabusky

Breitner

Rizkallah

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs - CPP 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We would like to use the Coq proof assistant to mechanically verify properties of Haskell programs. To that end, we present a tool, named hs-to-coq, that translates total Haskell programs into Coq programs via a shallow embedding. We apply our tool in three case studies -a lawful Monad instance, "Hutton's razor", and an existing data structure library -and prove their correctness. These examples show that this approach is viable: both that hs-to-coq applies to existing Haskell code, and that the output it produces is amenable to verification. CCS Concepts• Software and its engineering → Software verification;

show abstract

Section: Haskell and Dependently-typed Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Total Haskell is reasonable Coq

Spector-Zabusky

Breitner

Rizkallah

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs - CPP 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Herber et al generate conformance tests to complete the model-checking of SystemC designs (Herber et al, 2009). Conversely Dybjer et al use testing to avoid the effort of costing proofs (Dybjer et al, 2004), their method interweaves proving steps and testing steps while usually the proofs are done first on the model. Similarly Sharyginal and Peled use testing (with PET) prior to the actual verification (with SPIN) and during the evaluation of counter examples (Sharygina and Peled, 2001), testing is thus a kind of heuristics to reduce the state space explosion.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Techniques to Verify Service-based Components

André

Attiogbé

Mottu

2017

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Early verification is essential in model-driven development because late error detection involves a costly correction and approval process. Modelling real life systems covers three aspects of a system (structure, dynamics and functions) and one verification technique is not sufficient to check the properties related to these aspects. Considering Service-based Component Models, we propose a unifying schema called multi-level contracts that enables a combination of verification techniques (model checking, theorem proving and model testing) to cover the V&V requirements. This proposal is illustrated using the Kmelia language and its COSTO tool.

show abstract

“…However, they do neither discuss nor evaluate the benefit of that combination. Besides product lines, several combinations of theorem proving and model checking have been proposed [27,40,22,1,30], but they all inherently require to create new or change existing verifiers, whereas we used each verifier as-is. Nevertheless, more sophisticated combinations of theorem proving and model checking should be considered for product lines in future work.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential synergies of theorem proving and model checking for software product lines

Thüm

Meinicke

Benduhn

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The verification of software product lines is an active research area. A challenge is to efficiently verify similar products without the need to generate and verify them individually. As solution, researchers suggest family-based verification approaches, which either transform compile-time into runtime variability or make verification tools variabilityaware. Existing approaches either focus on theorem proving, model checking, or other verification techniques. For the first time, we combine theorem proving and model checking to evaluate their synergies for product-line verification. We provide tool support by connecting five existing tools, namely FeatureIDE and FeatureHouse for product-line development, as well as KeY, JPF, and OpenJML for verification of Java programs. In an experiment, we found the synergy of improved effectiveness and efficiency, especially for product lines with few defects. Further, we experienced that model checking and theorem proving are more efficient and effective if the product line contains more defects.

show abstract

Verifying Haskell programs by combining testing, model checking and interactive theorem proving

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Total Haskell is reasonable Coq

Total Haskell is reasonable Coq

Combining Techniques to Verify Service-based Components

Potential synergies of theorem proving and model checking for software product lines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About