Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1805.08059

One Monad to Prove Them All

Abstract

One Monad to Prove Them All is a modern fairy tale about curiosity and perseverance, two important properties of a successful PhD student. We follow the PhD student Mona on her adventure of proving properties about Haskell programs in the proof assistant Coq. On the one hand, as a PhD student in computer science Mona observes an increasing demand for correct software products. In particular, because of the large amount of existing software, verifying existing software products becomes more important. Verifying programs in the functional programming language Haskell is no exception. On the other hand, Mona is delighted to see that communities in the area of theorem proving are becoming popular. Thus, Mona sets out to learn more about the interactive theorem prover Coq and verifying Haskell programs in Coq. To prove properties about a Haskell function in Coq, Mona has to translate the function into Coq code. As Coq programs have to be total and Haskell programs are often not, Mona has to model partiality explicitly in Coq. In her quest for a solution Mona finds an ancient manuscript that explains how properties about Haskell functions can be proven in the proof assistant Agda by translating Haskell programs into monadic Agda programs. By instantiating the monadic program with a concrete monad instance the proof can be performed in either a total or a partial setting. Mona discovers that the proposed transformation does not work in Coq due to a restriction in the termination checker. In fact the transformation does not work in Agda anymore as well, as the termination checker in Agda has been improved. We follow Mona on an educational journey through the land of functional programming where she learns about concepts like free monads and containers as well as basics and restrictions of proof assistants like Coq. These concepts are well-known individually, but their interplay gives rise to a solution for Mona's problem based on the originally proposed monadic tranformation that has not been presented before. When Mona starts to test her approach by proving a statement about simple Haskell functions, she realizes that her approach has an additional advantage over the original idea in Agda. Mona's final solution not only works for a specific monad instance but even allows her to prove monad-generic properties. Instead of proving properties over and over again for specific monad instances she is able to prove properties that hold for all monads representable by a container-based instance of the free monad. In order to strengthen her confidence in the practicability of her approach, Mona evaluates her approach in a case study that compares two implementations for queues. In order to share the results with other functional programmers the fairy tale is available as a literate Coq file. If you are a citizen of the land of functional programming or are at least familiar with its customs, had a journey that involved reasoning about functional programs of your own, or are just a curious soul looking for the next story about monads and proofs, then this tale is for you.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sandra Dylus, Jan Christiansen, Finn Teegen. 2018-05-21. One Monad to Prove Them All. https://doi.org/10.22152/programming-journal.org/2019/3/8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

UnsafeChecker: Finding Soundness Bugs in Rust Safe Abstractions

Rust guarantees memory safety without garbage collection through a strict ownership and borrowing system. However, for low-level systems programming, many widely used libraries rely on the unsafe keyword. These libraries encapsulate raw-pointer operations behind safe APIs to form safe abstractions. A single mistake in this internal unsafe code can break its safety contract, rendering the abstraction unsound and allowing safe clients to trigger undefined behavior. Detecting these potential soundness violations is challenging. Existing static analysis tools for C/C++ ignore Rust-specific safety contracts, while current Rust tools lack the deep semantic modeling required to track the contexts that raw pointers erase. To address this gap, we present UnsafeChecker, a compiler-integrated static analysis framework for detecting potential soundness violations in Rust safe abstractions. UnsafeChecker analyzes Rust MIR using a flow-sensitive abstract interpretation that maintains a shared state with three components: ownership, object validity, and layout. Each warning rule consumes the subset of facts needed for the corresponding Rust safety obligation. UnsafeChecker reports both instruction-level undefined behavior and boundary-level contract violations that may escape through safe APIs. We evaluate UnsafeChecker on a benchmark of 46 RustSec vulnerabilities, which contain 53 ground-truth bugs. UnsafeChecker outperforms several state-of-the-art tools, detecting 32 CVEs and covering 36 bugs (67.9% recall) with 51.6% alert-level precision. Furthermore, in a large-scale scan of real-world crates on crates.io, UnsafeChecker uncovered 114 previously unknown bugs across 83 crates, with 45 confirmed and 27 already fixed by maintainers.

cs.PL

Mapping Dynamic, Hierarchical Quantum Circuits

Qubit mapping is a critical pass in quantum compilation. Despite various advances, dynamic circuits, those exhibiting data dependent control-flow, often resulting from qubit measurements, are not yet supported by the vast majority of available qubit mappers. The crucial limitation to overcome is the dependence on flat, one-dimensional representations of circuits. Further, qubit mappers currently lack compiler abstractions that capture the hierarchical nature of circuits, hindering the qubit mapping process. In this paper, 1 we introduce a new qubit mapping method and analyses to tackle hierarchical dynamic circuits. Our novelty resides in four key aspects: modeling (statically) sub-circuits in disjoint control-flow paths, introducing a novel Qubit Reconciliation pass to maintain consistency between sub-circuit and control-flow boundaries, a loop-entry remapping pass, and a refined cost function enhanced for SWAP count, circuit depth, circuit latency and error. We demonstrate the efficiency of our approach on a wide range of dynamic circuits on two monolithic Quantum Processing Units of 127 and 156 qubits, and on chiplet hexagon-based QPUs. On monolithic QPUs, our qubit mapper improves the SWAP count by up to 52%, depth by up to 18%, latency by up to 18.6%, and error by up to 40%. On chiplet architectures, we achieve improvements of up to 36% on SWAP count, 8.7% on depth, 15% on latency, and 15% of error.

cs.PL

Erased Postulates, Identity Types and Quotients

This text is concerned with the question of whether, in type theory with erasure annotations, one can postulate that some type is inhabited and still have a guarantee that a program will not get stuck. Previous work has provided such guarantees for consistent erased postulates, i.e. postulates that are restricted to be used in erased contexts. Here those guarantees are extended to type theory with identity types. Similar ideas provide a simple way to support quotient types: it is shown that one can let things like "the equivalence classes for two related values are equal" be erased postulates and have an eliminator that only computes for the equivalence class constructor, and still get a guarantee that programs will compute correctly. Another question is whether programs compute correctly if one is allowed to transport (cast) using erased identity proofs. It is shown that this is safe in the absence of quotients and postulates, and in the presence of quotients and erased postulates that can be implemented using equality reflection. However, unrestricted transports of this kind are not compatible with erased, postulated univalence. For that reason the text includes a study of the function []-cong, which encapsulates a limited form of transport for erased identity proofs. The text is accompanied by machine-checked Agda proofs.

cs.PL