Bas Spitters

AI
h-index19
3papers
9citations
Novelty38%
AI Score42

3 Papers

9.9AIMay 22
Agentic Proving for Program Verification

Alessandro Sosso, Akhil Arora, Bas Spitters

Agentic systems have recently emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics. To assess how far these capabilities extend to program verification, we evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation. Our results show that Claude generates arguably valid specifications for 98.8% of problems (with 81.3% also accepted by CLEVER's isomorphism-based scoring on the correct portion of the benchmark), certifies implementations against correct ground-truth specifications for 87.5% of problems, and reaches a 98.1% success rate on the end-to-end program generation and verification pipeline over entries with self-consistent premises. Across all stages, Claude further provides high-quality feedback on its own attempts (as confirmed under manual review), identifying underlying causes of failure and lingering bugs in the dataset. These findings highlight a growing mismatch between the difficulty of existing program verification benchmarks and the capabilities of modern agentic provers, and point to the need for more rigorous, bug-resilient evaluation methodologies, and in particular for alternatives to isomorphism-based scoring of generated specifications. More broadly, our results provide empirical evidence that tight compiler-in-the-loop agentic paradigms are currently the most effective approach for foundational program verification.

8.8CRJul 23, 2020Code
Formalizing Nakamoto-Style Proof of Stake

Søren Eller Thomsen, Bas Spitters

Fault-tolerant distributed systems move the trust in a single party to a majority of parties participating in the protocol. This makes blockchain based crypto-currencies possible: they allow parties to agree on a total order of transactions without a trusted third party. To trust a distributed system, the security of the protocol and the correctness of the implementation must be indisputable. We present the first machine checked proof that guarantees both safety and liveness for a consensus algorithm. We verify a Proof of Stake (PoS) Nakamoto-style blockchain (NSB) protocol, using the foundational proof assistant Coq. In particular, we consider a PoS NSB in a synchronous network with a static set of corrupted parties. We define execution semantics for this setting and prove chain growth, chain quality, and common prefix which together imply both safety and liveness.

6.6LOJun 19, 2018Code
Computer-aided proofs for multiparty computation with active security

Helene Haagh, Aleksandr Karbyshev, Sabine Oechsner et al.

Secure multi-party computation (MPC) is a general cryptographic technique that allows distrusting parties to compute a function of their individual inputs, while only revealing the output of the function. It has found applications in areas such as auctioning, email filtering, and secure teleconference. Given its importance, it is crucial that the protocols are specified and implemented correctly. In the programming language community it has become good practice to use computer proof assistants to verify correctness proofs. In the field of cryptography, EasyCrypt is the state of the art proof assistant. It provides an embedded language for probabilistic programming, together with a specialized logic, embedded into an ambient general purpose higher-order logic. It allows us to conveniently express cryptographic properties. EasyCrypt has been used successfully on many applications, including public-key encryption, signatures, garbled circuits and differential privacy. Here we show for the first time that it can also be used to prove security of MPC against a malicious adversary. We formalize additive and replicated secret sharing schemes and apply them to Maurer's MPC protocol for secure addition and multiplication. Our method extends to general polynomial functions. We follow the insights from EasyCrypt that security proofs can be often be reduced to proofs about program equivalence, a topic that is well understood in the verification of programming languages. In particular, we show that in the passive case the non-interference-based definition is equivalent to a standard game-based security definition. For the active case we provide a new NI definition, which we call input independence.