Use with Rewriting

Proof Generator for LiquidHaskell

This project aims to facilitate the migration/conversion of QuickCheck properties to LiquidHaskell proofs, by automating the translation process of QuickCheck tests to LiquidHaskell formal proof obligations with heuristics/tactics for proof automation. It can also be used as a mini proof assistant to help the overall experience and reduce the manual work in LiquidHaskell proofs.

The usage of this package with the rewriting feature in LiquidHaskell could potentially make your proofs highly automated. More information on this work can be found in the paper REST: REwriting in SmT solvers and in this thesis work.

Basic Usage

This repository provides the lhp QuasiQuoter that generates boilerplate code to write proofs in liquidhaskell, and possibly tries to help in proving them. Take this as an example:

[lhp|
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

Will generate a proof like this:

{-@ property_proof :: x:Bool -> ls:[Bool] -> { SOMETHING } @-}
property_proof :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property_proof x ls = SOMETHING
                    ***QED

Where SOMETHING is a predicate over x and ls.

To avoid issues with LH parsing your property or to be able to execute the property at runtime, you may want to extract the property (SOMETHING) to an external function and have the refined type to include only a function application. To do that you can use the option genProp to extract the property in a second function, and reflect to lift it to the LH type system:

[lhp|genProp|reflect
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

Will generate both the property and proof as two separate functions:

{-@ reflect property @-}
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
{-@ property_proof :: p1:Bool -> p2:[Bool] -> { property p1 p2 } @-}
property_proof :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property_proof x ls = SOMETHING
                    ***QED

LH annotations

You might want to use reflection on property and PLE on propert_proof, so you can either use lhp options:

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

Or, since the symbols property_proof and property are available in the scope, you can manually add LH annotations as:

{-@ reflect property @-}
{-@ ple property_proof @-}
[lhp|genProp
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

You can use the symbols in any other Haskell code, so you're not limited only to LH. For instance, the property can be run with QuickCheck.

Custom refinement type

If you want lhp to not generate the refinement type for your proof, you can use the option noSpec:

{-@ rightId_proof:: xs:[a] -> { xs ++ [] = xs } @-}
[lhp|noSpec|ple|induction|caseExpand
rightId :: [a] -> Proof
rightId xs     = ()
|]

Note that using noSpec you are no longer required to report the boolean property inside lhp, but you can just provide the proof body/hints.

Proof Automation

Automatic Case Splitting

You can use the option caseExpand to automatically do case splitting on your proof's parameters, this will drastically ease the proof to PLE.

For example, writing this:

data Fruit = Apple | Banana
[lhp|ple|caseExpand
property :: Bool -> Fruit  -> Bool
property bl fr = True
|]

Is the same as writing this proof:

{-@ ple property_proof @-}
property_proof :: Bool -> Fruit -> Proof
property_proof bl@False fr@Apple
  = (True) *** QED
property_proof bl@False fr@Banana
  = (True) *** QED
property_proof bl@True fr@Apple
  = (True) *** QED
property_proof bl@True fr@Banana
  = (True) *** QED

Helping LH with a single case

Using case expansion, you might want to add information on a single case, for example by adding an inductive hypothesis:

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple|caseExpand
assocP :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Bool
assocP (x:xs) ys zs = () ? assocP_proof xs ys zs
assocP xs ys zs = xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
|]

You only have to make sure that the plain boolean property is the last one you declare. You can specify anything that you want lhp to include in the proof above that. If you use genProp the property generated will not include the additional information that you provide with the "?" combinator.

Limiting case expansion on certain parameters

When you have several parameters, the case expansion might generate many clauses, having negative effect on verification time. You can use the option caseExpandP:n to instruct lhp to do pattern matching only on the first n parameters of your proof:

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple|caseExpandP:1
assocP ::  Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Bool
assocP xs ys zs = xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
|]

The above will generate only 2 clauses instead of 8:

assocP ::  Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Bool
assocP_proof xs@[] ys zs = ...
assocP_proof xs@(_ : _) ys zs =...

Semi-Exhaustive Induction

The tool implements a tactic to automatically generate induction hypotheses for your proofs. It generates a set of direct inductive hypotheses on the recursive (well defined) parameters. This heuristic works only when you use the automatic case expansion, otherwise the proof generator wouldn't be sure that you'd have a base case for each inductive case in your proof structure.

Suppose you want to prove the following property:

property xs = xs ++ [] == xs

where ++ is defined as:

(++) :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
[]       ++ ys = ys
(x : xs) ++ ys = x : (xs ++ ys)

You will notice that PLE alone does not suffice but it's necessary to give a manual proof:

{-@ rightId :: xs:[a] -> { xs ++ [] == xs } @-}
rightId :: [a] -> Proof
rightId []
   =   [] ++ []
  === []
  *** QED
rightId (x:xs)
  =   (x:xs) ++ []
  === x : (xs ++ [])
      ? rightId xs
  === x : xs
  *** QED

Namely, this proof contains the recursive call rightId xs (which acts as an inductive hypothesis in the proof). With the lhp proof assistant you can use the induction option and prove the property automatically:

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple|caseExpand|induction
rightIdP :: Eq a => [a] -> Bool
rightIdP xs  = xs ++ [] == xs
|]

Under the hood, it generates all possible inductive calls on the subparts of the recursive (well defined) parameters of your proof, then it filters out those that endanger the proof's termination.

Limit the generated inductive calls

The exhaustive induction may increase the verification time even when you have simple proofs as this one:

{-@ assocP :: xs:[a] -> ys:[a] -> zs:[a]
        -> { xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs }  @-}
assocP :: [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Proof
assocP [] _ _       = trivial
assocP (x:xs) ys zs = () ? assocP xs ys zs

The case expansion + induction will generate 8 clauses with multiple inductive hypothesis:

assocP_proof :: forall a. Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Proof
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@[] zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@[] zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) ys) p073)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@(p070 : p071) zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@(p070 : p071) zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) p073
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) ys) p073)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@[] zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@[] zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) p073
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) ys) p073)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@(p070 : p071) zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) p071) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@(p070 : p071) zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) p071) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) p071) p073
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) p073
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) zs
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) p071) p073
       ? ((assocP_proof xs) ys) p073)
      *** QED

To avoid this explosion, you can use the option inductionP:1 where 1 means that you want the induction to be generated only on the first parameter of the proof. That will cut all the other inductive hypotheses and reduce the verification time. Thus, for the case above, you would have an inductive call only for the cases where the first parameter xs is non-empty (thus 4). The following is safe:

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple|caseExpand|inductionP:1
assocP ::  Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Bool
assocP xs ys zs = xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
|]

Will generate this:

assocP_proof :: forall a. Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Proof
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@[] zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@[] zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@(p070 : p071) zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@[] ys@(p070 : p071) zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@[] zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@[] zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@(p070 : p071) zs@[]
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs)
      *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p068 : p069) ys@(p070 : p071) zs@(p072 : p073)
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p069) ys) zs)
      *** QED

However, the case expansion on all parameters is also unnecessary for this proof; hence, you are flexible to limit it (and let the induction follow):

[lhp|genProp|reflect|ple|induction|caseExpandP:1
assocP ::  Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> [a] -> Bool
assocP xs ys zs = xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
|]

Generates 1 inductive call and 2 clauses. Just the needed to prove the property:

assocP_proof xs@[] ys zs
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs) *** QED
assocP_proof xs@(p686 : p687) ys zs
  = (xs ++ (ys ++ zs) == (xs ++ ys) ++ zs
       ? ((assocP_proof p687) ys) zs)
      *** QED

Conclusion

In conclusion, when you have an inductive problem, use the options induction|caseExpand to attempt proving it by structural induction. If it verifies, limit case expansion to reduce verification time further.

Use with Rewriting

This proof generator can help automating your proofs further when combined with the rewriting feature recently added in LiquidHaskell. Examples on combined usage can be found in the benchmarks under /benchmark. The combination of the two features are described in detail in our paper here.

Options Reference

The lhp QuasiQuoter takes the declaration of a property and generates a proof obligation for it.

It accepts the following options:

ple generates the LH ple annotation for the proof
ignore generates the LH ignore annotation for the proof
genProp generates the propery along with the proof
inline generates the inline annotation for the property, works only in conjunction of genProp
reflect generates the reflect annotation for the property, works only in conjunction of genProp
noSpec generates only the proof body and lets the user specify the refinement type of the proof
admit to wrap the proof body with "**Admit" instead of "**QED"
debug generates a warning containing the generated refinement types & LH annotations
caseExpand enables case expansion/pattern matching on ADTs
induction enables structural induction on the parameters
caseExpandP:{n} limits the case expansion to the first {n} parameters
inductionP:{n} limits the inductive calls to the first {n} parameters
(very experimental) runLiquid runs LH locally and silently on the proof (useful with IDE integration)
(very experimental) runLiquidW runs LH locally to the proof and shows the result as a warning

Debugging

To see what lhp has generated, you can run ghci/ghc/liquidhaskell with the option -dth-dec-file or put on top of your module {-# OPTIONS_GHC -dth-dec-file #-} This will cause GHC to generate a "*.th.hs" containing what lhp expands to.

If you don't want to see all of that, and you want to see only the LH annotations that lhp generates, then you can use the option debug:

[lhp|ple|reflect|genProp|debug
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

Will show you this warnings in your IDE/ghci/ghc:

    [qc-to-lh]: ple property_proof

    [qc-to-lh]: reflect property

    [qc-to-lh]: property_proof :: p_0:Bool  -> p_1: [Bool]  -> {v:Proof | property p_0 p_1}

Running LiquidHaskell locally to a proof (experimental)

You could use runLiquidW option to run liquidhaskell locally on a proof and see its result as a warning:

[lhp|ple|reflect|genProp|runLiquidW
property :: Bool -> [Bool] -> Bool
property x ls = SOMETHING
|]

Will show LH's result on the binders property and property_proof as a warning at compile time. This is useful for IDE integration, because those warnings will automatically show in your IDE without you having to integrate liquidhaskell.

Or if you have an extension that reads .liquid dirs to show you the errors (like this one for vscode), you can use the option runLiquid instead, which will run silently LH on the proof.

Benchmarks

Tons of Inductive Problems

Under folder benchmarks you can find the proof generator applied to many problems ported to LiquidHaskell from the collection of inductive problems TIP.

CList and Skew Heap Proofs Case studies

src/CList_Proofs.hs contains the formal proofs of the QuickCheck properties in src/Lib/CL/QuickCheck.hs
- The proofs have been rewritten using the ProofGenerator lhp in src/Test/CList_Proofs.hs
src/Heap_Proofs.hs contains the formal proofs of the QuickCheck properties in src/Lib/QC/Heap.hs
- The proofs have been rewritten using the ProofGenerator lhp in src/Test/Heap_Proofs.hs
To run LH on them: stack exec -- liquid -isrc/ {target_file}
To run LH continously by watching file changes, run spy run -n "stack exec -- liquid -isrc/ {target_file}" src/

In package.json are provided some other commands that run liquidhaskell with stack which you can either copy paste in your terminal, or run using yarn or npm

TODO:

[..] Support for higher order properties (arrows as arguments)
[..] An option to select which proofs to generate in a module (and ignore the rest)
[..] Consider support for case expansion in sub terms (for example the type [[a]])
.. make case expansion reuse user-provided cases, if induction prop is used, then it should add them directly to pre-existing clause

Name		Name	Last commit message	Last commit date
Latest commit History 220 Commits
.github/workflows		.github/workflows
benchmarks		benchmarks
papers		papers
src		src
.ghci		.ghci
.gitignore		.gitignore
LICENSE		LICENSE
README.md		README.md
Setup.hs		Setup.hs
liquidhaskell-proof-generator.cabal		liquidhaskell-proof-generator.cabal
package.json		package.json
package.yaml		package.yaml
stack.yaml		stack.yaml
stack.yaml.lock		stack.yaml.lock

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Repository files navigation

Proof Generator for LiquidHaskell

Basic Usage

LH annotations

Custom refinement type

Proof Automation

Automatic Case Splitting

Helping LH with a single case

Limiting case expansion on certain parameters

Semi-Exhaustive Induction

Limit the generated inductive calls

Conclusion

Use with Rewriting

Options Reference

Debugging

Running LiquidHaskell locally to a proof (experimental)

Benchmarks

Tons of Inductive Problems

CList and Skew Heap Proofs Case studies

TODO:

About

Releases

Packages

Languages

License

mystaroll/qc-to-lh

Folders and files

Latest commit

History

Repository files navigation

Proof Generator for LiquidHaskell

Basic Usage

LH annotations

Custom refinement type

Proof Automation

Automatic Case Splitting

Helping LH with a single case

Limiting case expansion on certain parameters

Semi-Exhaustive Induction

Limit the generated inductive calls

Conclusion

Use with Rewriting

Options Reference

Debugging

Running LiquidHaskell locally to a proof (experimental)

Benchmarks

Tons of Inductive Problems

CList and Skew Heap Proofs Case studies

TODO:

About

Resources

License

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages 0

Languages

Packages