hackslash dot org

Verification-First Development

Posted: 2025-03-18 17:26:51

Verification-first development (VFD) prioritizes writing formal specifications and proofs before writing implementation code. This approach, while seemingly counterintuitive, aims to clarify requirements and design upfront, leading to more robust and correct software. By starting with a rigorous specification, developers gain a deeper understanding of the problem and potential edge cases. Subsequently, the code becomes a mere exercise in fulfilling the already-proven specification, akin to filling in the blanks. While potentially requiring more upfront investment, VFD ultimately reduces debugging time and leads to higher quality code by catching errors early in the development process, before they become costly to fix.

Hillel Wayne's "Verification-First Development" expounds upon a software development methodology that prioritizes the creation of rigorous specifications and verifications before the actual implementation of the code itself. This approach, contrasted with the more conventional test-driven development (TDD), aims to elevate code correctness and robustness by establishing clear, formal definitions of desired behavior upfront. Rather than iteratively writing tests and then code to pass those tests, verification-first development begins with painstakingly crafting precise specifications, often utilizing formal methods or mathematically-grounded techniques. These specifications act as a blueprint, delineating exactly what the software should do and, importantly, what it should not do, encompassing both intended functionality and potential edge cases.

Subsequently, these meticulously crafted specifications are subjected to rigorous verification processes. This might involve formal verification, which employs mathematical proofs to demonstrate that the specifications are internally consistent and free of contradictions, or property-based testing, a technique that explores a vast range of possible inputs to ensure the specifications hold true under diverse conditions. Only after the specifications have been thoroughly vetted and deemed correct does the actual coding process commence. The implementation then serves as a realization of the pre-defined specifications, with the assurance that adherence to these specifications guarantees the desired functionality.

Wayne emphasizes the advantages of this verification-first approach, arguing that it leads to higher quality code, reduces the likelihood of bugs and vulnerabilities, and facilitates easier maintenance and refactoring in the long run. By shifting the focus from reactive testing to proactive specification and verification, developers can preemptively address potential issues and build more robust and reliable software systems. This preemptive approach minimizes the need for debugging and patching later in the development cycle, ultimately saving time and resources. Furthermore, the explicit and formal nature of the specifications provides clear documentation and facilitates communication among developers, enhancing collaboration and understanding of the software's intended behavior. While acknowledging that verification-first development may require a greater initial investment in specification and verification efforts, Wayne posits that the long-term benefits in terms of code quality, maintainability, and reduced debugging overhead outweigh the initial costs. He highlights the applicability of this methodology across various domains, from safety-critical systems to general-purpose software development, advocating for a shift towards a more proactive and rigorously specified development process.

Summary of Comments ( 17 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402102

Hacker News users discussed the practicality and benefits of verification-first development (VFD). Some commenters questioned its applicability beyond simple examples, expressing skepticism about its effectiveness in complex, real-world projects. Others highlighted potential drawbacks like the added time investment for writing specifications and the difficulty of verifying emergent behavior. However, several users defended VFD, arguing that the upfront effort pays off through reduced debugging time and improved code quality, particularly when dealing with complex logic. Some suggested integrating VFD gradually, starting with critical components, while others mentioned tools and languages specifically designed to support this approach, like TLA+ and Idris. A key point of discussion revolved around finding the right balance between formal verification and traditional testing.

The Hacker News post titled "Verification-First Development" (linking to an article on buttondown.com) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters sharing their experiences and perspectives on the topic.

Several commenters affirmed the value of thinking about verification early in the development process, even if not strictly adhering to a "verification-first" methodology. One user highlighted how focusing on testability from the outset often leads to simpler and more modular designs. They emphasized that while full formal verification might not always be practical, the mindset of considering how to verify functionality early on is beneficial.

Another commenter pointed out the connection between verification-first development and test-driven development (TDD). They argued that TDD, when done correctly, inherently involves thinking about verification before implementation. The act of writing tests first forces developers to define the expected behavior of the code, which is a crucial step in the verification process.

There was some discussion about the tools and techniques used in verification-first development. One commenter specifically mentioned TLA+, a formal specification language, and its usefulness in designing robust systems. They shared a personal anecdote about using TLA+ to catch subtle errors early in the design phase, preventing significant debugging effort later.

A few commenters expressed skepticism about the practicality of verification-first development for all projects. They acknowledged its potential benefits for complex systems, but questioned its suitability for simpler applications where the overhead of formal verification might outweigh the advantages. They suggested that a more pragmatic approach would be to adopt a risk-based strategy, applying more rigorous verification techniques only to critical parts of the system.

Some comments also touched on the challenges of applying verification-first development in practice. One user mentioned the difficulty of accurately specifying the desired behavior of a system, especially in complex domains. They noted that incomplete or incorrect specifications can lead to false confidence in the correctness of the implementation. Another challenge mentioned was the learning curve associated with formal verification tools and techniques, which can be a barrier to adoption for some developers.

Finally, a couple of commenters shared links to related resources, including articles and talks on formal methods and software verification. This suggests a broader interest in the topic within the Hacker News community.

The Future Is Niri

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-12 11:42:16

Niri is a new programming language designed for building distributed systems. It aims to simplify concurrent and parallel programming by introducing the concept of "isolated objects" which communicate via explicit message passing, eliminating shared mutable state and thus avoiding data races and other concurrency bugs. This approach, coupled with automatic memory management and a focus on performance, makes Niri suitable for developing robust and efficient distributed applications, potentially replacing complex actor models or other concurrency paradigms. The language is still under development, but shows promise for streamlining the creation of complex distributed systems.

The blog post "The Future Is Niri" by Alexej Diez introduces Niri, a novel programming language designed to address the limitations of existing languages, particularly regarding concurrency and memory management. Diez posits that the current landscape of programming languages, while offering a variety of paradigms and tools, struggles to adequately manage the increasing complexities of modern hardware and software architectures, especially in the realm of parallel and distributed computing. He argues that prevalent approaches to concurrency, like shared memory with mutexes or message passing, are inherently prone to errors and difficult to reason about, leading to significant development overhead and susceptibility to subtle bugs.

Niri, as Diez elaborates, aims to overcome these challenges by introducing a fundamentally different model centered around the concept of isolated state, inspired by the actor model and offering a "shared nothing" concurrency paradigm. Each computational unit in Niri operates within its own isolated state, precluding shared mutable state and thus eliminating data races and other concurrency-related issues. Communication between these isolated units is achieved through asynchronous message passing, ensuring a deterministic and predictable execution flow, irrespective of the underlying hardware architecture or the number of concurrent operations.

The post delves into the specifics of Niri's syntax and semantics, highlighting its focus on simplicity and clarity. It emphasizes a type system designed for both safety and performance, allowing for compile-time detection of various errors and enabling efficient code generation. Diez further explains the memory management model of Niri, which leverages a combination of automatic memory management, employing techniques akin to garbage collection, along with explicit memory allocation control for fine-grained optimization when necessary. This dual approach provides the convenience of automated memory management without sacrificing the potential for performance optimization in critical sections of code.

Furthermore, the post underscores the potential of Niri to facilitate the development of robust and scalable distributed systems. By inherent design, Niri's isolation model and asynchronous communication primitives naturally align with the requirements of distributed computing, simplifying the process of designing and implementing complex distributed applications. Diez concludes by expressing his belief that Niri represents a significant step towards a future where concurrent and distributed programming is significantly more accessible and less error-prone, ultimately leading to more robust and performant software systems. He anticipates that Niri’s unique features will pave the way for innovation in various domains, particularly those demanding high concurrency and reliability.

Summary of Comments ( 21 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43342178

Hacker News users discussed Niri's potential, focusing on its novel approach to UI design. Several commenters expressed excitement about the demo, praising its speed and the innovative concept of manipulating data directly within the interface. Concerns were raised about the practicality of text-based interaction for complex tasks and the potential learning curve. Some questioned the long-term viability of relying solely on a keyboard-driven interface, while others saw it as a powerful tool for experienced users. The discussion also touched upon comparisons to other tools like spreadsheets and the potential benefits for specific use cases like data analysis and programming. Some users expressed skepticism, finding the current implementation limited and wanting to see more concrete examples of its capabilities.

The Hacker News post "The Future Is Niri," linking to an article describing a hypothetical new internet protocol called Niri, generated several comments discussing its feasibility, potential benefits, and drawbacks.

Several commenters expressed skepticism about Niri's claims and its ability to overcome existing internet infrastructure challenges. One commenter questioned the practicality of Niri's micropayment system for content retrieval, highlighting the existing complexities and costs associated with micropayment infrastructure. They also pointed out the potential for abuse and the difficulty in determining fair pricing for various types of content. Another skeptic argued that the benefits of Niri, such as censorship resistance and improved efficiency, are overstated and that similar functionalities are already achievable or in development within existing protocols. The commenter also raised concerns about the cost and complexity of transitioning to a new internet architecture.

A recurring theme in the comments was the difficulty of replacing the existing internet infrastructure. Commenters pointed out the entrenched nature of TCP/IP and the massive undertaking required to transition to a new protocol. They also questioned the economic incentives for such a shift, given the significant investments already made in current technologies. One commenter drew parallels with previous attempts to create alternative internet architectures, suggesting that Niri might face similar challenges in gaining widespread adoption.

Despite the skepticism, some commenters expressed interest in Niri's potential. One commenter praised the innovative approach and the focus on addressing some of the internet's limitations, particularly in the areas of security and efficiency. They acknowledged the significant hurdles to implementation but encouraged further exploration of the concept. Another commenter specifically highlighted the potential of Niri's addressing system to improve routing efficiency and reduce latency.

The discussion also touched upon the technical aspects of Niri, with some commenters questioning the specifics of its implementation and its ability to scale to the size of the current internet. One commenter raised concerns about the potential for denial-of-service attacks and the need for robust mechanisms to mitigate such threats.

Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a mix of skepticism and cautious optimism towards Niri. While some commenters see potential in its innovative approach, others remain unconvinced of its practicality and ability to overcome the significant challenges associated with replacing the existing internet infrastructure. The discussion highlights the complex considerations involved in developing and deploying a new internet protocol and the importance of addressing issues such as scalability, security, and economic incentives.

Constant-time coding will soon become infeasible

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-09 05:21:41

The paper "Constant-time coding will soon become infeasible" argues that maintaining constant-time implementations for cryptographic algorithms is becoming increasingly challenging due to evolving hardware and software environments. The authors demonstrate that seemingly innocuous compiler optimizations and speculative execution can introduce timing variability, even in carefully crafted constant-time code. These issues are exacerbated by the complexity of modern processors and the difficulty of fully understanding their intricate behaviors. Consequently, the paper concludes that guaranteeing constant-time execution across different architectures and compiler versions is nearing impossibility, potentially jeopardizing the security of cryptographic implementations relying on this property to prevent timing attacks. They suggest exploring alternative mitigation strategies, such as masking and blinding, as more robust defenses against side-channel vulnerabilities.

The paper "Constant-Time Coding Will Soon Become Infeasible," authored by Daniel J. Bernstein, Tanja Lange, and Peter Schwabe, explores the escalating challenges of writing software that executes in constant time, irrespective of secret data. Constant-time coding is a crucial technique for mitigating timing attacks, a class of side-channel attacks where an adversary measures the time taken for a cryptographic operation to complete and infers sensitive information, such as cryptographic keys. The core argument of the paper hinges on the increasing complexity of modern computer architectures, which introduces numerous unpredictable timing variations.

The authors meticulously analyze various factors contributing to this growing complexity, including out-of-order execution, speculative execution, caching mechanisms, branch prediction, prefetching, and the intricate interplay of these features. They highlight how these architectural optimizations, designed to improve overall performance, create intricate timing dependencies that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fully account for when writing constant-time code. Even minor variations in the execution path, seemingly inconsequential from a functional perspective, can leak information through timing variations.

The paper argues that achieving true constant-time execution is becoming increasingly challenging due to the inherent unpredictability introduced by these performance-enhancing features. The authors illustrate this with concrete examples, showcasing how seemingly innocuous code constructs can exhibit timing variations depending on the underlying architecture and its specific configuration. They emphasize that even diligent programmers who meticulously avoid conditional branching based on secret data can still fall prey to timing vulnerabilities introduced by these intricate architectural features.

Furthermore, the authors discuss the limitations of current mitigation strategies, such as compiler optimizations and specialized hardware instructions designed to enforce constant-time execution. They argue that these strategies often fail to address the full spectrum of timing variations introduced by modern architectures. They also emphasize the increasing difficulty of verifying the effectiveness of these mitigation techniques due to the sheer complexity of modern processors.

The paper concludes with a somewhat pessimistic outlook on the future of constant-time coding, suggesting that achieving true constant-time execution may become practically infeasible in the face of ever-increasing architectural complexity. This presents a significant challenge to the security of cryptographic systems and necessitates the exploration of alternative approaches for mitigating timing attacks. The authors encourage the community to investigate alternative defense mechanisms that do not rely on constant-time code execution, such as masking techniques and information-theoretically secure cryptographic constructions. They underscore the urgency of addressing this challenge to ensure the continued robustness of cryptographic systems in the face of evolving side-channel threats.

Summary of Comments ( 40 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43306514

HN commenters discuss the implications of the research paper, which suggests constant-time programming will become increasingly difficult due to hardware optimizations like speculative execution. Several express concern about the future of cryptography and security-sensitive code, as these rely heavily on constant-time implementations to prevent side-channel attacks. Some doubt the practicality of the attack described, citing existing mitigations and the complexity of exploiting microarchitectural side channels. Others propose software-based defenses, such as using interpreter-based languages, formal verification, or inserting random delays. The feasibility and cost of deploying these mitigations are also debated, with some arguing that the burden will fall disproportionately on developers. There's also skepticism about the paper's claims of "infeasibility," with commenters suggesting that constant-time coding will become more challenging but not impossible.

The Hacker News post titled "Constant-time coding will soon become infeasible" (linking to a paper about speculative execution attacks) sparked a discussion with several insightful comments. Many commenters grappled with the implications of the research and its potential impact on security practices.

A recurring theme was the perceived difficulty and cost of implementing truly constant-time code. Some commenters highlighted that even seemingly simple operations could have hidden timing variations due to underlying hardware or compiler optimizations. This complexity, they argued, makes it challenging for developers to write secure constant-time code reliably, especially given the constantly evolving landscape of speculative execution vulnerabilities.

Several commenters discussed the trade-offs between security and performance. They acknowledged the importance of constant-time coding for protecting sensitive information but also pointed out the potential performance penalties associated with it. Some suggested that in certain scenarios, the performance costs might outweigh the security benefits, leading to difficult decisions for developers.

The discussion also touched on the role of hardware in mitigating these vulnerabilities. Some commenters expressed hope that future hardware designs would address the root causes of speculative execution attacks, making constant-time coding less critical. Others were more pessimistic, arguing that hardware mitigations alone might not be sufficient and that software-level defenses like constant-time coding would remain necessary.

A few commenters delved into the technical details of the research paper, discussing specific attack scenarios and potential countermeasures. They explored the limitations of existing defenses and the challenges of developing new ones. These comments provided valuable technical insights into the complexities of speculative execution attacks and the ongoing efforts to address them.

Finally, some comments focused on the broader implications of the research for the security community. They expressed concerns about the increasing difficulty of writing secure code in the face of constantly evolving hardware vulnerabilities. Some called for greater collaboration between hardware manufacturers, software developers, and security researchers to tackle these challenges effectively. Others emphasized the need for better tools and training to help developers write secure constant-time code.

A Mechanically Verified Garbage Collector for OCaml [pdf]

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-27 05:38:07

This paper details the formal verification of a garbage collector for a substantial subset of OCaml, including higher-order functions, algebraic data types, and mutable references. The collector, implemented and verified using the Coq proof assistant, employs a hybrid approach combining mark-and-sweep with Cheney's copying algorithm for improved performance. A key achievement is the proof of correctness showing that the garbage collector preserves the semantics of the original OCaml program, ensuring no unintended behavior alterations due to memory management. This verification increases confidence in the collector's reliability and serves as a significant step towards a fully verified implementation of OCaml.

This paper details the design, implementation, and formal verification of a new garbage collector for the OCaml programming language, aiming to improve performance and provide strong guarantees about its correctness. The existing OCaml runtime utilizes the "incremental major collector" known as the ZGC, which, while effective, presents challenges for formal verification due to its complexity. This new garbage collector, named “MLgc,” employs a concurrent, multi-core-friendly mark-and-sweep algorithm with a focus on simplicity and verifiability.

The authors highlight the significance of mechanical verification in ensuring the garbage collector's reliability, preventing potentially disastrous bugs that can be difficult to detect and diagnose in complex memory management systems. They employ the Coq proof assistant to formally verify key properties of the garbage collector, assuring that it preserves memory safety and satisfies essential invariants. This rigorous verification process provides a high level of confidence in the collector's correctness, going beyond traditional testing methodologies.

The MLgc design is rooted in the "Beltway" algorithm, which partitions the heap into regions and employs a concurrent marking phase. A key innovation is the use of a "snapshot-at-the-beginning" (SATB) marking scheme, allowing the collector to accurately track live objects even as the mutator (the main program) continues execution. This concurrent operation minimizes pauses and improves overall performance, especially in multi-core environments. The sweeping phase reclaims unreachable memory regions, making them available for allocation.

The paper emphasizes the challenges involved in verifying the concurrent nature of the collector. Reasoning about concurrent algorithms is inherently complex due to the potential for interleavings and race conditions. The authors leverage Coq's capabilities to formally model the concurrency and prove the absence of data races and other concurrency-related errors. The verification focuses on key properties, including ensuring that all live objects are preserved, no dangling pointers are created, and the heap remains consistent throughout the garbage collection process.

The implementation of MLgc is integrated into the Multicore OCaml runtime system, allowing for practical evaluation. While performance results are not the primary focus of this paper, preliminary benchmarks suggest that MLgc achieves competitive throughput and latency compared to existing OCaml garbage collectors. Furthermore, the simplified design and formal verification contribute to increased maintainability and confidence in the long-term stability of the runtime.

In conclusion, the paper presents a significant advancement in garbage collection for OCaml by introducing a formally verified, concurrent mark-and-sweep collector. The use of Coq provides strong guarantees about the collector's correctness, addressing the complexities of concurrent memory management. This work lays a foundation for more reliable and performant OCaml runtimes, paving the way for broader adoption of formal verification in language runtime systems.

Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191667

Hacker News users discuss a mechanically verified garbage collector for OCaml, focusing on the practical implications of such verification. Several commenters express skepticism about the real-world performance impact, questioning whether the verification translates to noticeable improvements in speed or reliability for average users. Some highlight the trade-offs between provable correctness and potential performance limitations. Others note the significance of the work for critical systems where guaranteed safety and predictable behavior are paramount, even at the cost of some performance. The discussion also touches on the complexity of garbage collection and the challenges in achieving both efficiency and correctness. Some commenters raise concerns about the applicability of the specific approach to other languages or garbage collection algorithms.

The Hacker News post discussing the mechanically verified garbage collector for OCaml has several comments exploring various aspects of the work.

Several commenters express appreciation for the accomplishment of verifying a garbage collector, acknowledging the complexity and difficulty inherent in such an undertaking. They see this as a significant step towards more reliable and robust software, particularly in areas where memory safety is critical.

One commenter delves into the specifics of the Coq proof assistant, used for the verification, mentioning the challenges associated with its steep learning curve and the significant time investment required to become proficient. They further highlight the value of Coq in ensuring the correctness of complex systems like garbage collectors.

Discussion arises around the practicality and performance implications of verified software. Some commenters question whether the performance overhead introduced by the verification process is acceptable, while others express optimism about the potential for future optimizations and the long-term benefits of increased reliability.

The topic of formal verification in general is also touched upon, with commenters discussing its growing importance in various fields and the potential for broader adoption in the future. The complexities and trade-offs of formal methods are acknowledged, but the overall sentiment appears to be one of encouragement for continued research and development in this area.

One commenter specifically points out the significance of verifying a concurrent garbage collector, highlighting the added difficulty this presents due to the intricate interactions and potential race conditions inherent in concurrent systems.

The use of OCaml as the target language is also mentioned, with some commenters expressing interest in the implications for the OCaml ecosystem and the potential for wider adoption of verified components within the language.

Finally, a commenter questions the extent of the verification, asking whether the entire garbage collector or only specific properties were verified. This highlights the importance of clearly defining the scope and limitations of formal verification efforts. Another commenter mentions that the work is being done in the context of the "Verdi" framework, which is itself formally verified, adding another layer of confidence to the results.

Ada crate of the year 2024 announced

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-09 19:37:38

AdaCore has announced the winners of its "Ada/SPARK Crate of the Year 2024" competition. The gold award went to Libadalang-TV, a library providing a tree view for Libadalang, simplifying Ada and SPARK code analysis. Silver was awarded to Ada-Scintilla, a binding for the Scintilla editing component, enhancing Ada and SPARK development environments. Finally, Florist, a tool for static analysis of formal verification results, took home the bronze. These crates demonstrate community contributions to improving the Ada and SPARK ecosystem, providing valuable tools for development, analysis, and verification.

The AdaCore blog has formally declared the victors of the prestigious "Ada and SPARK Crate of the Year" competition for the year 2024. This annual event celebrates excellence and innovation within the Ada and SPARK programming communities, specifically focusing on high-quality, reusable software components packaged as "crates," a term borrowed from the Rust ecosystem and adapted for Ada and SPARK. The competition aims to highlight the practical utility and robustness of Ada and SPARK in diverse domains while encouraging developers to contribute valuable resources to the broader ecosystem.

This year's competition saw a diverse array of submissions demonstrating the versatility and power of these languages. After a meticulous evaluation process undertaken by a panel of expert judges, two outstanding crates emerged victorious. The first winner, "libkeccak," developed by Fabien Chouteau, provides a highly optimized implementation of the Keccak cryptographic hash function family. This library is significant for its performance characteristics, which are crucial for security-sensitive applications, and for its adherence to rigorous software engineering principles. Its selection underscores the suitability of Ada and SPARK for developing robust and efficient cryptographic primitives.

The second winning crate, "GtkAda_QueryBuilder," crafted by Yannick Moy, addresses the practical needs of developers working with databases within the context of the GtkAda GUI framework. This crate streamlines the process of constructing complex database queries, simplifying a task that can often be tedious and error-prone. By offering a user-friendly interface for building queries, this crate significantly enhances developer productivity and contributes to the creation of more robust and reliable database-driven applications. The judges recognized the practical value of this contribution for Ada and SPARK developers working on real-world projects.

The announcement highlights not just the winning crates but also acknowledges the broader context of growth and development within the Ada and SPARK ecosystem. It emphasizes the increasing adoption of these languages for critical systems and the ongoing efforts to foster a thriving community of developers. The "Crate of the Year" competition serves as a testament to the ongoing vitality and innovation within the Ada and SPARK communities, showcasing their commitment to producing high-quality, reusable software components for a wide range of applications. By celebrating these achievements, AdaCore encourages further development and contributions to the ecosystem, fostering a virtuous cycle of innovation and growth within the Ada and SPARK programming world.

Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993086

Hacker News users discussed the winning Ada/SPARK crates, expressing interest in Creatif's accessibility features for blind programmers and praising its maintainers' dedication. Some questioned the term "crate" in the Ada context, suggesting "package" or "library" as more fitting. A few comments highlighted Ada's strengths in safety-critical systems, contrasting its niche status with the broader popularity of Rust, while also acknowledging Rust's growing presence in similar domains. One commenter pondered the reasons behind Ada's limited adoption despite its technical merits.

The Hacker News post "Ada crate of the year 2024 announced" (linking to the Adacore blog post about the winners) has a modest number of comments, mostly focusing on the niche nature of Ada and Spark, and some of their perceived advantages and disadvantages.

One commenter highlights the apparent contradiction in terms of "Ada crate," pointing out that "crate" is Rust terminology and suggesting "package" or "library" would be more appropriate in the Ada context. This spurred a short thread discussing how the term "crate" might be a deliberate attempt to make Ada/Spark seem more modern and appealing to a wider audience, acknowledging the possibility of it backfiring due to appearing forced or unfamiliar to those already within the Ada community.

Another commenter expresses surprise at Ada still being used and wonders about its current applications. This led to a discussion about its continued prevalence in safety-critical systems, particularly in aerospace and defense, where its strong typing and formal verification capabilities (especially with Spark) are highly valued. Specific examples, like its use in the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 flight control systems, were mentioned to illustrate this point. A related comment acknowledged the language's robustness and reliability, but also pointed out the perceived steep learning curve as a potential barrier to wider adoption.

There's a short exchange about the challenges of recruiting Ada developers, with one commenter suggesting that the limited pool of skilled programmers might be a contributing factor to higher development costs. Another comment countered this by arguing that the initial investment in training and development can be offset by the reduced need for debugging and maintenance down the line due to the language's focus on correctness.

Finally, there's a comment mentioning the availability of open-source Ada tools and libraries, suggesting that the ecosystem is not as limited as some might assume. This comment also links to the Alire package manager, presented as a way to simplify the process of building and managing Ada projects.

In summary, the comments section explores themes surrounding Ada and Spark's niche status, its strengths in safety-critical systems, the challenges associated with its learning curve and developer pool, and the existence of resources for those interested in learning more. The overall tone is generally respectful and informative, with commenters offering different perspectives on the language and its ecosystem.

Large Language Models for Mathematicians

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-01 15:41:08

This paper explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) as tools for mathematicians. It examines how LLMs can assist with tasks like generating conjectures, finding proofs, simplifying expressions, and translating between mathematical formalisms. While acknowledging current limitations such as occasional inaccuracies and a lack of deep mathematical understanding, the authors demonstrate LLMs' usefulness in exploring mathematical ideas, automating tedious tasks, and providing educational support. They argue that future development focusing on formal reasoning and symbolic computation could significantly enhance LLMs' capabilities, ultimately leading to a more symbiotic relationship between mathematicians and AI. The paper also discusses the ethical implications of using LLMs in mathematics, including concerns about plagiarism and the potential displacement of human mathematicians.

The arXiv preprint titled "Large Language Models for Mathematicians" explores the potential utility and current limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) within the domain of mathematical research and practice. The authors meticulously examine how these powerful language models, trained on vast datasets of text and code, can be leveraged by mathematicians across various aspects of their work. This includes, but is not limited to, tasks such as generating code for mathematical computations, translating mathematical ideas between formal and informal language, assisting in the exploration of mathematical concepts, and even aiding in the generation of conjectures or proofs.

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in applying LLMs to mathematical problems. It delves into specific examples demonstrating how LLMs can be utilized for tasks like symbolic computation, numerical calculation, and the generation of mathematical text in different styles and levels of formality. Furthermore, the authors discuss the capabilities of LLMs to interact with specialized mathematical software systems, thereby extending their potential impact on mathematical workflows.

A significant portion of the preprint is devoted to a nuanced discussion of the limitations and potential pitfalls associated with employing LLMs in mathematical contexts. The authors acknowledge the inherent limitations of these models, including their tendency to generate plausible-sounding yet incorrect mathematical statements, their occasional struggle with complex logical reasoning, and their dependence on the quality and scope of the training data. They emphasize the crucial role of human oversight and critical evaluation when using LLMs for mathematical work, cautioning against blind reliance on the output generated by these models.

The preprint also explores the broader implications of LLMs for the future of mathematical research and education. It considers the potential for LLMs to democratize access to mathematical knowledge and tools, enabling wider participation in mathematical exploration and discovery. Furthermore, it examines the ethical considerations surrounding the use of LLMs in mathematics, highlighting the importance of responsible development and deployment of these powerful technologies.

In conclusion, the paper "Large Language Models for Mathematicians" provides a detailed and balanced assessment of the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in the realm of mathematics. It offers a valuable resource for mathematicians interested in exploring the potential of these models to enhance their work, while also emphasizing the importance of critical evaluation and responsible usage in this context. The authors suggest that LLMs, while not a replacement for human mathematical ingenuity, can serve as powerful tools that augment and amplify human capabilities in the pursuit of mathematical understanding.

Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899184

Hacker News users discussed the potential for LLMs to assist mathematicians, but also expressed skepticism. Some commenters highlighted LLMs' current weaknesses in formal logic and rigorous proof construction, suggesting they're more useful for brainstorming or generating initial ideas than for producing finalized proofs. Others pointed out the importance of human intuition and creativity in mathematics, which LLMs currently lack. The discussion also touched upon the potential for LLMs to democratize access to mathematical knowledge and the possibility of future advancements enabling more sophisticated mathematical reasoning by AI. There was some debate about the specific examples provided in the paper, with some users questioning their significance. Overall, the sentiment was cautiously optimistic, acknowledging the potential but emphasizing the limitations of current LLMs in the field of mathematics.

The Hacker News post titled "Large Language Models for Mathematicians," linking to the arXiv preprint "Large Language Models for Mathematicians," has generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments.

Several commenters discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of using LLMs for mathematical research. One commenter points out that LLMs could be useful for "grunt work" like writing boilerplate code or checking basic calculations, freeing up mathematicians to focus on more creative tasks. However, they also caution against relying too heavily on LLMs for proofs, as they may not be fully reliable. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that LLMs might be more helpful for generating "ideas or conjectures" rather than rigorously proving them. They highlight the importance of human oversight and critical thinking when using these tools.

One thread focuses on the specific examples provided in the paper. A commenter questions the validity of claiming an LLM "solved" a problem if it simply recognized a known solution from its training data. They argue that true mathematical understanding involves more than pattern matching. Another commenter challenges this, suggesting that even recognizing and applying known solutions to new problems is a valuable skill.

The discussion also touches on the broader implications of LLMs for the field of mathematics. One commenter speculates about the future role of mathematicians, wondering if LLMs could eventually automate significant portions of mathematical research. They express both excitement and concern about this possibility. Another commenter raises the question of whether LLMs could discover genuinely new mathematical concepts or theorems, or if they are fundamentally limited to recombining existing knowledge. This leads to a brief discussion of the nature of mathematical creativity and the potential for LLMs to contribute to it.

Finally, some commenters offer more practical perspectives. One suggests that LLMs could be particularly useful for educational purposes, helping students learn and practice mathematical concepts. Another commenter mentions the potential for LLMs to assist with literature reviews, enabling mathematicians to more easily access and synthesize relevant research.

Overall, the comments reflect a nuanced perspective on the potential of LLMs in mathematics. While acknowledging the limitations and potential risks, many commenters express optimism about the ways in which these tools could enhance mathematical research and education in the future. The discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the role of AI in scientific discovery and the evolving relationship between humans and machines in the pursuit of knowledge.

Anatomy of a Formal Proof

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-24 18:19:35

This article dissects the structure of a formal mathematical proof, illustrating it with a simple example about even and odd numbers. It emphasizes the distinction between informal proofs aimed at human understanding and formal proofs designed for automated verification. Formal proofs meticulously lay out every logical step, referencing specific axioms and inference rules within a chosen formal system. This detailed approach, while tedious for humans, enables computer-assisted verification and eliminates ambiguity, ensuring absolute rigor. The article highlights the importance of choosing appropriate axioms and the role of proof assistants in constructing and checking these complex formal structures, ultimately increasing confidence in mathematical results.

The American Mathematical Society's Notices article, "Anatomy of a Formal Proof," delves into the intricate process of constructing a formal mathematical proof, contrasting it with the more informal proofs typically encountered in mathematical publications. It emphasizes that formal proofs, unlike their informal counterparts, are meticulously detailed and rigorously structured to be verifiable by automated proof assistants, also known as proof checkers. These software tools require a level of precision far exceeding human expectations in traditional mathematical discourse.

The article elucidates this distinction by dissecting a specific example: the formalization of a theorem concerning Cauchy sequences in metric spaces. This theorem, relatively simple in its informal presentation, becomes considerably more complex when formalized. The formalization process necessitates explicitly stating and proving many foundational concepts that are often implicitly assumed in informal proofs. This includes defining fundamental notions like equality, ordered pairs, functions, Cartesian products, and the real numbers, all within the specific logical framework of the proof assistant. The article highlights the substantial effort required to build this foundational layer, illustrating the "iceberg phenomenon" where a concise informal proof rests upon a vast, submerged body of underlying definitions and lemmas.

Furthermore, the article explores the challenges of translating informal mathematical language, rich with nuances and implicit understandings, into the rigid and unambiguous syntax demanded by formal proof systems. This translation process requires a meticulous deconstruction of the informal argument, meticulously filling in all the implicit steps and justifications. The article underscores that this often reveals hidden complexities and ambiguities in the informal proof, forcing mathematicians to confront subtle assumptions they might have unconsciously made.

The authors describe the iterative nature of formal proof development. The process typically involves writing a formal proof sketch, attempting to verify it with the proof assistant, addressing the resulting errors and gaps, and repeating this cycle until the entire proof is formally verified. This iterative refinement, aided by the precise feedback from the proof assistant, contributes to an exceptionally high level of certainty in the correctness of the final formalized proof.

The article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of formalization for mathematical practice. While acknowledging the significant investment of time and effort required, it highlights the benefits of increased confidence in the validity of complex mathematical arguments, the potential for discovering new mathematical insights through the formalization process, and the role formalization plays in bridging the gap between human mathematical reasoning and computational verification. The authors suggest that while full formalization of all mathematical results is likely impractical, strategically formalizing key theorems and foundational concepts can significantly enhance the rigor and reliability of mathematics as a whole.

Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42815755

HN commenters discuss the accessibility of formal proof systems, particularly referencing Lean. Some express excitement about the potential of formal proofs to revolutionize mathematics, while others are more skeptical, citing the steep learning curve and questioning the practical benefits for most mathematicians. Several commenters debate the role of intuition versus rigor in mathematical practice, with some arguing that formalization can enhance understanding and others suggesting it might stifle creativity. The feasibility of formalizing existing mathematical knowledge is also discussed, with varying opinions on the timescale and resources required for such a project. Some users highlight the potential of AI in assisting with formalization efforts, while others remain cautious about its current capabilities. The overall tone is one of cautious optimism, acknowledging the challenges but also recognizing the potential transformative power of formal proof systems.

The Hacker News post "Anatomy of a Formal Proof" (linking to an American Mathematical Society article detailing a formal proof of the Central Limit Theorem) generated a moderate discussion with several interesting points.

A few commenters discussed the practical implications and applications of formal proofs. One noted the potential for increased trust in critical systems, suggesting that formal proofs could eliminate bugs and vulnerabilities in areas like flight control software. They highlighted the importance of this, given the increasing complexity and reliance on software in critical systems. Another commenter pondered the future impact on mathematics education, speculating that tools and techniques from formal proof systems might eventually filter down to the undergraduate or even high school level, changing how math is taught.

The conversation also touched upon the evolution and accessibility of formal proof tools. One commenter, familiar with older systems like Mizar, expressed pleasant surprise at the relative readability and clarity of the Isabelle/HOL proof presented in the article. They viewed this as a significant advancement in making formal methods more approachable. Another commenter pointed out the existing applications of formal methods in hardware verification, suggesting that the software world could learn from the hardware industry's experience.

Some comments delved into the philosophical implications of formal proofs. One commenter questioned the ultimate value of formalization, arguing that informal proofs, while potentially flawed, still hold significant value due to their accessibility and explanatory power. They suggested that the effort involved in formalization might outweigh the benefits in some cases. This sparked a counter-argument emphasizing that informal proofs can hide subtle errors, and the rigor of formalization provides a higher level of certainty, even if it comes at a cost in terms of complexity.

Finally, several comments focused on the specific tools and techniques used in the proof. Commenters mentioned specific proof assistants like Lean, Coq, and Isabelle/HOL, comparing their features and discussing their respective communities. There was also some discussion of the trade-offs between different approaches to formalization, with some commenters expressing preferences for particular styles or methods.

In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post explored the practical, pedagogical, philosophical, and technical aspects of formal proofs, reflecting the diverse interests of the Hacker News community. The discussion provided a nuanced perspective on the potential benefits and challenges of formalization in mathematics and beyond.

Compiling C to Safe Rust, Formalized

permalink

Posted: 2024-12-20 23:30:03

This paper introduces Crusade, a formally verified translation from a subset of C to safe Rust. Crusade targets a memory-safe dialect of C, excluding features like arbitrary pointer arithmetic and casts. It leverages the Coq proof assistant to formally verify the translation's correctness, ensuring that the generated Rust code behaves identically to the original C, modulo non-determinism inherent in C. This rigorous approach aims to facilitate safe integration of legacy C code into Rust projects without sacrificing confidence in memory safety, a critical aspect of modern systems programming. The translation handles a substantial subset of C, including structs, unions, and functions, and demonstrates its practical applicability by successfully converting real-world C libraries.

The arXiv preprint "Compiling C to Safe Rust, Formalized" details a novel approach to automatically translating C code into memory-safe Rust code. This process aims to leverage the performance benefits of C while inheriting the robust memory safety guarantees offered by Rust, thereby mitigating the pervasive vulnerability landscape associated with C programming.

The authors introduce a sophisticated compilation pipeline founded on a formal semantic model. This model rigorously defines the behavior of both the source C code and the target Rust code, enabling a precise and verifiable translation process. The core of this pipeline utilizes a "stacked borrows" model, a memory management strategy adopted by Rust that enforces strict rules regarding shared mutable references and mutable borrows to prevent data races and memory corruption. The translation procedure systematically transforms C pointers into Rust references governed by these stacked borrows rules, ensuring that the resulting Rust code adheres to the same memory safety principles inherent in Rust's design.

A key challenge addressed by the paper is the handling of C's flexible pointer arithmetic and unrestricted memory access patterns. The authors introduce a concept of "ghost state" within the formal model. This ghost state tracks the provenance and validity of pointers throughout the C code, allowing the compiler to reason about pointer relationships and enforce memory safety during translation. This information is then leveraged to generate corresponding safe Rust constructs, such as safe references and bounds checks, that mirror the intended behavior of the original C code while respecting Rust's stricter memory model.

The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of their approach through a formalization within the Coq proof assistant. This formalization rigorously verifies the soundness of the translation process, proving that the generated Rust code preserves the semantics of the original C code while guaranteeing memory safety. This rigorous verification provides strong evidence for the correctness and reliability of the proposed compilation technique.

Furthermore, the authors outline how their approach accommodates various C language features, including function pointers, structures, and unions. They describe how these features are mapped to corresponding safe Rust equivalents, thereby expanding the scope of the translation process to cover a wider range of C code.

While the paper primarily focuses on the formal foundations and theoretical aspects of the C-to-Rust translation, it also lays the groundwork for future development of a practical compiler toolchain based on these principles. Such a toolchain could offer a valuable pathway for migrating existing C codebases to a safer environment while minimizing manual rewriting effort and preserving performance characteristics. The formal verification aspect provides a high degree of confidence in the safety of the translated code, a crucial consideration for security-critical applications.

Summary of Comments ( 157 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42476192

HN commenters discuss the challenges and nuances of formally verifying the C to Rust transpiler, Cracked. Some express skepticism about the practicality of fully verifying such a complex tool, citing the potential for errors in the formal proofs themselves and the inherent difficulty of capturing all undefined C behavior. Others question the performance impact of the generated Rust code. However, many commend the project's ambition and see it as a significant step towards safer systems programming. The discussion also touches upon the trade-offs between a fully verified transpiler and a more pragmatic approach focusing on common C patterns, with some suggesting that prioritizing practical safety improvements could be more beneficial in the short term. There's also interest in the project's handling of concurrency and the potential for integrating Cracked with existing Rust tooling.

The Hacker News post titled "Compiling C to Safe Rust, Formalized" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42476192) has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters exploring different aspects of the C to Rust transpilation process and its implications.

One of the most prominent threads revolves around the practical benefits and challenges of such a conversion. A commenter points out the potential for improved safety and maintainability by leveraging Rust's ownership and borrowing system, but also acknowledges the difficulty in translating C's undefined behavior into a Rust equivalent. This leads to a discussion about the trade-offs between preserving the original C code's semantics and enforcing Rust's stricter safety guarantees. The difficulty of handling C's reliance on pointer arithmetic and manual memory management is highlighted as a major hurdle.

Another key area of discussion centers around the performance implications of the transpilation. Commenters speculate about the potential for performance improvements due to Rust's closer-to-the-metal nature and its ability to optimize memory access. However, others raise concerns about the overhead introduced by Rust's safety checks and the potential for performance regressions if the translation isn't carefully optimized. The question of whether the generated Rust code would be idiomatic and performant is also raised.

The topic of formal verification and its role in ensuring the correctness of the translation is also touched upon. Commenters express interest in the formalization aspect, recognizing its potential to guarantee that the translated Rust code behaves equivalently to the original C code. However, some skepticism is voiced about the practicality of formally verifying complex C codebases and the potential for subtle bugs to slip through even with formal methods.

Finally, several commenters discuss alternative approaches to improving the safety and security of C code, such as using static analysis tools or employing safer subsets of C. The transpilation approach is compared to these alternatives, with varying opinions on its merits and drawbacks. The overall sentiment seems to be one of cautious optimism, with many acknowledging the potential of C to Rust transpilation but also recognizing the significant challenges involved.

Stories with Tag Formal Verification

Summary of Comments ( 17 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402102

Summary of Comments ( 21 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43342178

Summary of Comments ( 40 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43306514

Summary of Comments ( 0 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191667

Summary of Comments ( 1 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993086

Summary of Comments ( 4 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899184

Summary of Comments ( 0 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42815755

Summary of Comments ( 157 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42476192

Summary of Comments ( 17 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402102

Summary of Comments ( 21 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43342178

Summary of Comments ( 40 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43306514

Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191667

Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993086

Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899184

Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42815755

Summary of Comments ( 157 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42476192