9.0AIMay 27, 2022
Learning to Find Proofs and Theorems by Learning to Refine Search Strategies: The Case of Loop Invariant SynthesisJonathan Laurent, André Platzer · cmu
We propose a new approach to automated theorem proving where an AlphaZero-style agent is self-training to refine a generic high-level expert strategy expressed as a nondeterministic program. An analogous teacher agent is self-training to generate tasks of suitable relevance and difficulty for the learner. This allows leveraging minimal amounts of domain knowledge to tackle problems for which training data is unavailable or hard to synthesize. As a specific illustration, we consider loop invariant synthesis for imperative programs and use neural networks to refine both the teacher and solver strategies.
1.9SCApr 1
Differential Elimination and Algebraic Invariants of Polynomial Dynamical SystemsWilliam Simmons, André Platzer
Invariant sets are a key ingredient for verifying safety and other properties of cyber-physical systems that mix discrete and continuous dynamics. We adapt the elimination-theoretic Rosenfeld-Gröbner algorithm to systematically obtain algebraic invariants of polynomial dynamical systems without using Gröbner bases or quantifier elimination. We identify totally real varieties as an important class for efficient invariance checking.
Provably Safe Neural Network Controllers via Differential Dynamic LogicSamuel Teuber, Stefan Mitsch, André Platzer · cmu
While neural networks (NNs) have potential as autonomous controllers for Cyber-Physical Systems, verifying the safety of NN based control systems (NNCSs) poses significant challenges for the practical use of NNs, especially when safety is needed for unbounded time horizons. One reason is the intractability of analyzing NNs, ODEs and hybrid systems. To this end, we introduce VerSAILLE (Verifiably Safe AI via Logically Linked Envelopes): The first general approach that allows reusing control theory results for NNCS verification. By joining forces, we exploit the efficiency of NN verification tools while retaining the rigor of differential dynamic logic (dL). Based on provably safe control envelopes in dL, we derive specifications for the NN which is proven via NN verification. We show that a proof of the NN adhering to the specification is mirrored by a dL proof on the infinite-time safety of the NNCS. The NN verification properties resulting from hybrid systems typically contain nonlinear arithmetic and arbitrary logical structures while efficient NN verification merely supports linear constraints. To overcome this divide, we present Mosaic: An efficient, sound and complete verification approach for polynomial real arithmetic properties on piece-wise linear NNs. Mosaic partitions complex verification queries into simple queries and lifts off-the-shelf linear constraint tools to the nonlinear setting in a completeness-preserving manner by combining approximation with exact reasoning for counterexample regions. Our evaluation demonstrates the versatility of VerSAILLE and Mosaic: We prove infinite-time safety on the classical Vertical Airborne Collision Avoidance NNCS verification benchmark for two scenarios while (exhaustively) enumerating counterexample regions in unsafe scenarios. We also show that our approach significantly outperforms State-of-the-Art tools in closed-loop NNV.
Oracular Programming: A Modular Foundation for Building LLM-Enabled SoftwareJonathan Laurent, André Platzer
Large Language Models can solve a wide range of tasks from just a few examples, but they remain difficult to steer and lack a capability essential for building reliable software at scale: the modular composition of computations under enforceable contracts. As a result, they are typically embedded in larger software pipelines that use domain-specific knowledge to decompose tasks and improve reliability through validation and search. Yet the complexity of writing, tuning, and maintaining such pipelines has so far limited their sophistication. We propose oracular programming: a foundational paradigm for integrating traditional, explicit computations with inductive oracles such as LLMs. It rests on two directing principles: the full separation of core and search logic, and the treatment of few-shot examples as grounded and evolvable program components. Within this paradigm, experts express high-level problem-solving strategies as programs with unresolved choice points. These choice points are resolved at runtime by LLMs, which generalize from user-provided examples of correct and incorrect decisions. An oracular program is composed of three orthogonal components: a strategy that consists in a nondeterministic program with choice points that can be reified into a search tree, a policy that specifies how to navigate this tree with the help of LLM oracles, and a set of demonstrations that describe successful and unsuccessful tree navigation scenarios across diverse problem instances. Each component is expressed in a dedicated programming language and can be independently improved or substituted. We address the key programming language design challenges of modularly composing oracular programs and enforcing consistency between their components as they evolve.
Verification of Autonomous Neural Car Control with KeYmaera XEnguerrand Prebet, Samuel Teuber, André Platzer
This article presents a formal model and formal safety proofs for the ABZ'25 case study in differential dynamic logic (dL). The case study considers an autonomous car driving on a highway avoiding collisions with neighbouring cars. Using KeYmaera X's dL implementation, we prove absence of collision on an infinite time horizon which ensures that safety is preserved independently of trip length. The safety guarantees hold for time-varying reaction time and brake force. Our dL model considers the single lane scenario with cars ahead or behind. We demonstrate that dL with its tools is a rigorous foundation for runtime monitoring, shielding, and neural network verification. Doing so sheds light on inconsistencies between the provided specification and simulation environment highway-env of the ABZ'25 study. We attempt to fix these inconsistencies and uncover numerous counterexamples which also indicate issues in the provided reinforcement learning environment.
1.2LOSep 26, 2025
Can Large Language Models Autoformalize Kinematics?Aditi Kabra, Jonathan Laurent, Sagar Bharadwaj et al.
Autonomous cyber-physical systems like robots and self-driving cars could greatly benefit from using formal methods to reason reliably about their control decisions. However, before a problem can be solved it needs to be stated. This requires writing a formal physics model of the cyber-physical system, which is a complex task that traditionally requires human expertise and becomes a bottleneck. This paper experimentally studies whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can automate the formalization process. A 20 problem benchmark suite is designed drawing from undergraduate level physics kinematics problems. In each problem, the LLM is provided with a natural language description of the objects' motion and must produce a model in differential game logic (dGL). The model is (1) syntax checked and iteratively refined based on parser feedback, and (2) semantically evaluated by checking whether symbolically executing the dGL formula recovers the solution to the original physics problem. A success rate of 70% (best over 5 samples) is achieved. We analyze failing cases, identifying directions for future improvement. This provides a first quantitative baseline for LLM-based autoformalization from natural language to a hybrid games logic with continuous dynamics.
5.8AIJun 17, 2024
Intersymbolic AI: Interlinking Symbolic AI and Subsymbolic AIAndré Platzer
This perspective piece calls for the study of the new field of Intersymbolic AI, by which we mean the combination of symbolic AI, whose building blocks have inherent significance/meaning, with subsymbolic AI, whose entirety creates significance/effect despite the fact that individual building blocks escape meaning. Canonical kinds of symbolic AI are logic, games and planning. Canonical kinds of subsymbolic AI are (un)supervised machine and reinforcement learning. Intersymbolic AI interlinks the worlds of symbolic AI with its compositional symbolic significance and meaning and of subsymbolic AI with its summative significance or effect to enable culminations of insights from both worlds by going between and across symbolic AI insights with subsymbolic AI techniques that are being helped by symbolic AI principles. For example, Intersymbolic AI may start with symbolic AI to understand a dynamic system, continue with subsymbolic AI to learn its control, and end with symbolic AI to safely use the outcome of the learned subsymbolic AI controller in the dynamic system. The way Intersymbolic AI combines both symbolic and subsymbolic AI to increase the effectiveness of AI compared to either kind of AI alone is likened to the way that the combination of both conscious and subconscious thought increases the effectiveness of human thought compared to either kind of thought alone. Some successful contributions to the Intersymbolic AI paradigm are surveyed here but many more are considered possible by advancing Intersymbolic AI.
4.3LOJan 30, 2017
The KeYmaera X Proof IDE - Concepts on Usability in Hybrid Systems Theorem ProvingStefan Mitsch, André Platzer
Hybrid systems verification is quite important for developing correct controllers for physical systems, but is also challenging. Verification engineers, thus, need to be empowered with ways of guiding hybrid systems verification while receiving as much help from automation as possible. Due to undecidability, verification tools need sufficient means for intervening during the verification and need to allow verification engineers to provide system design insights. This paper presents the design ideas behind the user interface for the hybrid systems theorem prover KeYmaera X. We discuss how they make it easier to prove hybrid systems as well as help learn how to conduct proofs in the first place. Unsurprisingly, the most difficult user interface challenges come from the desire to integrate automation and human guidance. We also share thoughts how the success of such a user interface design could be evaluated and anecdotal observations about it.