Category: Tools

A Craig interpolant is a formula that acts as an explanation for the unsatisfiability of a logical formula. Interpolating Z3 (iZ3) is a version of the Z3 theorem prover that can produce Craig interpolants from proofs. To be more specific, suppose “A” and “B” are logical formulas and we can prove “A implies B”. An interpolant for this implication is a formula I expressed only using symbols that are common to A and B that makes the following formulas valid:

• “A implies I”
• “I implies B”

The power of interpolants is that they put a proof in a syntactic form that allows it to be generalized. This ability can be applied, for example, to extract proofs about sequential circuits or programs from proofs about specific execution sequences, or to derive abstractions from counterexamples.

Capabilities of iZ3

iZ3 can derive Craig interpolants from proofs in first-order logic, modulo certain theories, including:

• Integer linear arithmetic
• The theory of arrays

iZ3 handles quantified formulas, but does not always produce a quantifier-free interpolant when a quantifier-free interpolant exists. iZ3 can also produce sequence interpolants and tree interpolants, which are useful for program verification and constraint Horn clause (CHC) solving, as in the Duality CHC solver.

For more information on using iZ3, see the iZ3 tutorial.

Obtaining iZ3

iZ3 was a part of Z3 up to version 4.7.1. Releases including iZ3 can be downloaded from the Z3 github repository. However iZ3 is not maintained in current releases of Z3.

Papers

The following paper describes an older version of iZ3 that used a method of decomposing Z3 proofs into lemmas and applying the FOCI interpolating prover to these lemmas. The current version constructs interpolants directly from Z3 proofs.

Interpolants from Z3 proofs (Kenneth L. McMillan), In International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD ’11, Austin, TX, USA, October 30 – November 02, 2011, 2011. [bibtex] [pdf]

IVy is a tool for specifying, modeling, implementing and verifying protcols. IVy is intended to allow interactive development of protocols and their proofs of correctness and to provide a platform for developing and experimenting with automated proof techniques. In particular, IVy provides interactive visualization of automated proofs, and supports a use model in which the human protocol designer and the automated tool interact to expose errors and prove correctness.

IVy has two primary design goals: to be as transparent as possible, and to produce design artifacts that are useful even to engineers who may lack the skills or resources needed to construct formal proofs.

Transparency

The research community has developed many impressive automated tools for formal proof. For example, SMT solvers such as Microsoft’s Z3 can check the validity of formulas in various logics and can even generate inductive invariants. Because these tools are heuristic in nature, however, they fail in ways that are unpredictable and often not understandable by a human user. To reduce this problem, Ivy relies on interactive visualization, decidable logics and modularity

Interactive visualization

Ivy constructs inductive invariants interactively, using visualization techniques. When there is a problem in the proof, it searches for a simple scenario to explain the problem and displays it graphically, highlighting possibly relevant facts. Users can combine their intuition with automated generalization techniques to refine the proof. This approach can greatly reduce the human time needed to construct a proof.

Decidable logics and modularity

A logic is decidable if there is a algorithm that can determine the truth of any formula. In practice, using decidable logics makes proof automation more reliable and repeatable. It also makes it possible to give transparent explanations of proof failures.

IVy’s language is designed to make it practical to reduce all proof obligations to statements in decidable logics. It provides primitives to support modeling in decidable logics, and also modular refinement techniques the makes it possible to separate the verification effort into local, decidable problems. For example, we can verify a protocol at a high level assuming that a given abstract type is totally ordered, then implement that abstract type using bit vectors or integers.

Design artifacts

Another key focus of Ivy is to produce composable specifications that can be used as a reference by designers and for rigorous testing of designs. Ivy supports specifications that are both composable and temporal. This means that if all components locally satisfy their specifications, we know that the system as a whole correctly implements its high-level semantics. Moreover, each component’s specification can be used independently to test and verify that component.

From composable specifications, Ivy can generate test benches and tests oracles that can be used to test design components rigorously against their specifications. Such testers can reveal latent bugs in component implementations that do not appear in integration tests or ad-hoc unit testing.

Getting Ivy

Ivy is an open source tool. For more information on Ivy, see the Ivy github repository and the Ivy web site.

Papers

Formal specification and testing of QUIC (Kenneth L. McMillan and Lenore D. Zuck), In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’19), ACM, 2019. [bibtex] [pdf] [slides]

Deductive Verification in Decidable Fragments with Ivy (Kenneth L. McMillan and Oded Padon), In Static Analysis – 25th International Symposium, SAS 2018, Freiburg, Germany, August 29-31, 2018, Proceedings (Andreas Podelski, ed.), Springer, volume 11002, 2018. [bibtex] [pdf] [doi]

Modularity for decidability of deductive verification with applications to distributed systems (Marcelo Taube and Giuliano Losa and Kenneth L. McMillan and Oded Padon and Mooly Sagiv and Sharon Shoham and James R. Wilcox and Doug Woos), In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, 2018. [bibtex] [pdf] [doi]

Temporal Prophecy for Proving Temporal Properties of Infinite-State Systems (Oded Padon and Jochen Hoenicke and Kenneth L. McMillan and Andreas Podelski and Mooly Sagiv and Sharon Shoham), In 2018 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, FMCAD 2018, Austin, TX, USA, October 30 – November 2, 2018 (Nikolaj Bjørner, Arie Gurfinkel, eds.), IEEE, 2018. [bibtex] [pdf] [doi]

Ivy: safety verification by interactive generalization (Oded Padon and Kenneth L. McMillan and Aurojit Panda and Mooly Sagiv and Sharon Shoham), In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2016, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, June 13-17, 2016, 2016. [bibtex] [pdf] [doi]

Modular specification and verification of a cache-coherent interface (Kenneth L. McMillan), In 2016 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, FMCAD 2016, Mountain View, CA, USA, October 3-6, 2016, 2016. [bibtex] [pdf] [doi]