Formal Foundations for Translational Separation Logic Verifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Program verification tools are often implemented as front-end translations of an input program into an intermediate verification language (IVL) such as Boogie, GIL, Viper, or Why3. The resulting IVL program is then verified using an existing back-end verifier. A soundness proof for such a translational verifier needs to relate the input program and verification logic to the semantics of the IVL, which in turn needs to be connected with the verification logic implemented in the back-end verifiers. Performing such proofs is challenging due to the large semantic gap between the input and output programs and logics, especially for complex verification logics such as separation logic. This paper presents a formal framework for reasoning about translational separation logic verifiers. At its center is a generic core IVL that captures the essence of different separation logics. We define its operational semantics and formally connect it to two different back-end verifiers, which use symbolic execution and verification condition generation, resp. Crucially, this semantics uses angelic non-determinism to enable the application of different proof search algorithms and heuristics in the back-end verifiers. An axiomatic semantics for the core IVL simplifies reasoning about the front-end translation by performing essential proof steps once and for all in the equivalence proof with the operational semantics rather than for each concrete front-end translation. We illustrate the usefulness of our formal framework by instantiating our core IVL with elements of Viper and connecting it to two Viper back-ends as well as a front-end for concurrent separation logic. All our technical results have been formalized in Isabelle/HOL, including the core IVL and its semantics, the semantics of two back-ends for a subset of Viper, and all proofs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".