arXiv subjects

Jenna DiVincenzo

Publications and source records attributed to Jenna DiVincenzo.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Gradually Verifying Unfolding Expressions & Pure Functions

Unfolding expressions, which temporarily unfold a predicate to leverage its owned fields when evaluating a heap-dependent expression, and pure functions, which are heap-dependent functions that can be used in specifications, are used in deductive program verifiers based on implicit dynamic frames, such as Gradual C0, Gobra, Nagini, and SnaKt, to increase the modularity of specifications involving ownership. In this paper, we present the formal semantics for unfolding expressions and pure functions for a static verifier using symbolic execution, extend it for a gradual verifier, and provide a proof of soundness. To support Gradual C0, our proof is in the setting of gradual verification, a deductive program verification system that combines static and dynamic verification to allow partial specifications. However, because the gradual verifier is a conservative extension of a static verifier, our results also apply to static verifiers that use symbolic execution, such as the Silicon symbolic execution backend for the Viper verification infrastructure used by Gobra, Nagini, and SnaKt.

cs.PL↗

arXiv2026

An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Specifications for VeriFast

Static verification tools can assure industrial scale software, but require significant human labor to write specifications. This is particularly true of static verifiers based on separation logic (SL verifiers), which excel at verifying heapmanipulating programs, but require many complex auxiliary specifications to reason about heap structure. Recent work applies large language models (LLMs) to generate code, tests, and proofs, including specifications for verifiers, but mostly targeting non-SL verifiers. To address this gap, this paper thoroughly evaluates how well LLMs perform when prompted to generate specifications for verifying 303 C functions with the SL verifier VeriFast. We explored eight prompting approaches, ten LLMs, and three input types in two stages. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to assess the LLM-generated code and specifications for functional behavior, verifiability and errors. The results show that LLMs preserve functional behavior in source code and specifications (both over 91%), but achieve modest verification success (31.4%). Using Gemini 2.5 Pro and providing formal contracts lead to higher success rates in our setting. Moreover, most errors (94%) come from LLMs' mistakes in the domainspecific knowledge of SL verifiers such as VeriFast. These findings provide guidance for optimizing LLM-generated specifications for SL verifiers.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFast

Static verification is a powerful method for enhancing software quality, but it demands significant human labor and resources. This is particularly true of static verifiers that reason about heap manipulating programs using an ownership logic. LLMs have shown promise in a number of software engineering activities, including code generation, test generation, proof generation for theorem provers, and specification generation for static verifiers. However, prior work has not explored how well LLMs can perform specification generation for specifications based in an ownership logic, such as separation logic. To address this gap, this paper explores OpenAI's GPT-4o model's effectiveness in generating specifications on C programs that are verifiable with VeriFast, a separation logic based static verifier. Our experiment employs three different types of user inputs as well as basic and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to assess GPT's capabilities. Our results indicate that the specifications generated by GPT-4o preserve functional behavior, but struggle to be verifiable. When the specifications are verifiable they contain redundancies. Future directions are discussed to improve the performance.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Gradual Exact Logic: Unifying Hoare Logic and Incorrectness Logic via Gradual Verification

Previously, gradual verification has been developed using overapproximating logics such as Hoare logic. We show that the static verification component of gradual verification is also connected to underapproximating logics like incorrectness logic. To do this, we use a novel definition of gradual verification and a novel gradualization of exact logic [Maksimovic et al. 2023] which we call gradual exact logic. Further, we show that Hoare logic, incorrectness logic, and gradual verification can be defined in terms of gradual exact logic. We hope that this connection can be used to develop tools and techniques that apply to both gradual verification and bug-finding. For example, we envision that techniques defined in terms of exact logic can be directly applied to verification, bug-finding, and gradual verification, using the principles of gradual typing [Garcia et al. 2016].

cs.LO↗

arXiv2024

Gradual Verification for Smart Contracts

Blockchains facilitate secure resource transactions through smart contracts, yet these digital agreements are prone to vulnerabilities, particularly when interacting with external contracts, leading to substantial monetary losses. Traditional verification techniques fall short in providing comprehensive security assurances, especially against re-entrancy attacks, due to the unavailable implementations of external contracts. This paper introduces an incremental approach: gradual verification. We combine static and dynamic verification techniques to enhance security, guarantee soundness and flexibility, and optimize resource usage in smart contract interactions. By implementing a prototype for gradually verifying Algorand smart contracts via the pyTEAL language, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, contributing to the safe and efficient execution of smart contracts.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Gradual C0: Symbolic Execution for Gradual Verification

Current static verification techniques support a wide range of programs. However, such techniques only support complete and detailed specifications, which places an undue burden on users. To solve this problem, prior work proposed gradual verification, which handles complete, partial, or missing specifications by soundly combining static and dynamic checking. Gradual verification has also been extended to programs that manipulate recursive, mutable data structures on the heap. Unfortunately, this extension does not reward users with decreased dynamic checking as specifications are refined. In fact, all properties are checked dynamically regardless of any static guarantees. Additionally, no full-fledged implementation of gradual verification exists so far, which prevents studying its performance and applicability in practice. We present Gradual C0, the first practicable gradual verifier for recursive heap data structures, which targets C0, a safe subset of C designed for education. Static verifiers supporting separation logic or implicit dynamic frames use symbolic execution for reasoning; so Gradual C0, which extends one such verifier, adopts symbolic execution at its core instead of the weakest liberal precondition approach used in prior work. Our approach addresses technical challenges related to symbolic execution with imprecise specifications, heap ownership, and branching in both program statements and specification formulas. We also deal with challenges related to minimizing insertion of dynamic checks and extensibility to other programming languages beyond C0. Finally, we provide the first empirical performance evaluation of a gradual verifier, and found that on average, Gradual C0 decreases run-time overhead between 11-34% compared to the fully-dynamic approach used in prior work. Further, the worst-case scenarios for performance are predictable and avoidable.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2023

Sound Gradual Verification with Symbolic Execution

Gradual verification, which supports explicitly partial specifications and verifies them with a combination of static and dynamic checks, makes verification more incremental and provides earlier feedback to developers. While an abstract, weakest precondition-based approach to gradual verification was previously proven sound, the approach did not provide sufficient guidance for implementation and optimization of the required run-time checks. More recently, gradual verification was implemented using symbolic execution techniques, but the soundness of the approach (as with related static checkers based on implicit dynamic frames) was an open question. This paper puts practical gradual verification on a sound footing with a formalization of symbolic execution, optimized run-time check generation, and run time execution. We prove our approach is sound; our proof also covers a core subset of the Viper tool, for which we are aware of no previous soundness result. Our formalization enabled us to find a soundness bug in an implemented gradual verification tool and describe the fix necessary to make it sound.

cs.PL↗