5 Search Results for "Annenkov, Danil"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2026.40
The Groupoid-Syntax of Type Theory Is a Set

Authors: Thorsten Altenkirch, Ambrus Kaposi, and Szumi Xie

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 363, 34th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2026)

Abstract
Categories with families (CwFs) have been used to define the semantics of type theory in type theory. In the setting of Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT), one of the limitations of the traditional notion of CwFs is the requirement to set-truncate types, which excludes models based on univalent categories, such as the standard set model. To address this limitation, we introduce the concept of a Groupoid Category with Families (GCwF). This framework truncates types at the groupoid level and incorporates coherence equations, providing a natural extension of the CwF framework when starting from a 1-category. We demonstrate that the initial GCwF for a type theory with a base family of sets and Π-types (groupoid-syntax) is set-truncated. Consequently, this allows us to utilize the conventional intrinsic syntax of type theory while enabling interpretations in semantically richer and more natural models. All constructions in this paper were formalised in Cubical Agda.
Cite as

Thorsten Altenkirch, Ambrus Kaposi, and Szumi Xie. The Groupoid-Syntax of Type Theory Is a Set. In 34th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 363, pp. 40:1-40:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{altenkirch_et_al:LIPIcs.CSL.2026.40,
  author =	{Altenkirch, Thorsten and Kaposi, Ambrus and Xie, Szumi},
  title =	{{The Groupoid-Syntax of Type Theory Is a Set}},
  booktitle =	{34th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2026)},
  pages =	{40:1--40:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-411-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2026},
  volume =	{363},
  editor =	{Guerrini, Stefano and K\"{o}nig, Barbara},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2026.40},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-254650},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2026.40},
  annote =	{Keywords: Categorical models of type theory, category with families, groupoids, coherence, homotopy type theory}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2025.12
Automatic Goal Clone Detection in Rocq

Authors: Ali Ghanbari

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 333, 39th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2025)

Abstract
Proof engineering in Rocq is a labor-intensive process, and as proof developments grow in size, redundancy and maintainability become challenges. One such redundancy is goal cloning, i.e., proving α-equivalent goals multiple times, leading to wasted effort and bloated proof scripts. In this paper, we introduce clone-finder, a novel technique for detecting goal clones in Rocq proofs. By leveraging the formal notion of α-equivalence for Gallina terms, clone-finder systematically identifies duplicated proof goals across large Rocq codebases. We evaluate clone-finder on 40 real-world Rocq projects from the CoqGym dataset. Our results reveal that each project contains an average of 27.73 instances of goal clone. We observed that the clones can be categorized as either exact goal duplication, generalization, or α-equivalent goals with different proofs, each signifying varying levels duplicate effort. Our findings highlight significant untapped potential for proof reuse in Rocq-based formal verification projects, paving the way for future improvements in automated proof engineering.
Cite as

Ali Ghanbari. Automatic Goal Clone Detection in Rocq. In 39th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 333, pp. 12:1-12:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{ghanbari:LIPIcs.ECOOP.2025.12,
  author =	{Ghanbari, Ali},
  title =	{{Automatic Goal Clone Detection in Rocq}},
  booktitle =	{39th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2025)},
  pages =	{12:1--12:19},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-373-7},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{333},
  editor =	{Aldrich, Jonathan and Silva, Alexandra},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2025.12},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-233055},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2025.12},
  annote =	{Keywords: Clone Detection, Goal, Proof, Rocq, Gallina}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.3
Formal Verification in Solidity and Move: Insights from a Comparative Analysis

Authors: Massimo Bartoletti, Silvia Crafa, and Enrico Lipparini

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 129, 6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025)

Abstract
Formal verification plays a crucial role in making smart contracts safer, being able to find bugs or to guarantee their absence, as well as checking whether the business logic is correctly implemented. For Solidity, even though there already exist several mature verification tools, the semantical quirks of the language can make verification quite hard in practice. Move, on the other hand, has been designed with security and verification in mind, and it has been accompanied since its early stages by a formal verification tool, the Move Prover. In this paper, we investigate through a comparative analysis: 1) how the different designs of the two contract languages impact verification, and 2) what is the state-of-the-art of verification tools for the two languages, and how do they compare on three paradigmatic use cases. Our investigation is supported by an open dataset of verification tasks performed in Certora and in the Aptos Move Prover.
Cite as

Massimo Bartoletti, Silvia Crafa, and Enrico Lipparini. Formal Verification in Solidity and Move: Insights from a Comparative Analysis. In 6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 129, pp. 3:1-3:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{bartoletti_et_al:OASIcs.FMBC.2025.3,
  author =	{Bartoletti, Massimo and Crafa, Silvia and Lipparini, Enrico},
  title =	{{Formal Verification in Solidity and Move: Insights from a Comparative Analysis}},
  booktitle =	{6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025)},
  pages =	{3:1--3:18},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-371-3},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{129},
  editor =	{Marmsoler, Diego and Xu, Meng},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.3},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-230302},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.3},
  annote =	{Keywords: Smart contracts, Solidity, Move, Verification, Blockchain}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.11
Formally Specifying Contract Optimizations with Bisimulations in Coq

Authors: Derek Sorensen

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 129, 6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025)

Abstract
The efficacy of formal verification of smart contracts depends on being able to correctly specify and carry out the verification of optimized code. However, code optimized for performance is rarely optimized for intelligibility, which can make formally verifying optimized code difficult and costly. To address this issue, we present a formal tool for reasoning about an optimized contract in terms of its reference implementation. This tool reduces the work of formally verifying an optimized contract to proving behavioral equivalence to the reference implementation.
Cite as

Derek Sorensen. Formally Specifying Contract Optimizations with Bisimulations in Coq. In 6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 129, pp. 11:1-11:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{sorensen:OASIcs.FMBC.2025.11,
  author =	{Sorensen, Derek},
  title =	{{Formally Specifying Contract Optimizations with Bisimulations in Coq}},
  booktitle =	{6th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2025)},
  pages =	{11:1--11:13},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-371-3},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2025},
  volume =	{129},
  editor =	{Marmsoler, Diego and Xu, Meng},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.11},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-230382},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2025.11},
  annote =	{Keywords: smart contract verification, formal methods, interactive theorem prover, smart contract upgradeability}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2
Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework

Authors: Mikkel Milo, Eske Hoy Nielsen, Danil Annenkov, and Bas Spitters

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 105, 4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022)

Abstract
We provide three detailed case studies of vulnerabilities in smart contracts, and show how property based testing would have found them: 1. the Dexter1 token exchange; 2. the iToken; 3. the ICO of Brave’s BAT token. The last example is, in fact, new, and was missed in the auditing process. We have implemented this testing in ConCert, a general executable model/specification of smart contract execution in the Coq proof assistant. ConCert contracts can be used to generate verified smart contracts in Tezos' LIGO and Concordium’s rust language. We thus show the effectiveness of combining formal verification and property-based testing of smart contracts.
Cite as

Mikkel Milo, Eske Hoy Nielsen, Danil Annenkov, and Bas Spitters. Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework. In 4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 105, pp. 2:1-2:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{milo_et_al:OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2,
  author =	{Milo, Mikkel and Nielsen, Eske Hoy and Annenkov, Danil and Spitters, Bas},
  title =	{{Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework}},
  booktitle =	{4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022)},
  pages =	{2:1--2:13},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-250-1},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2022},
  volume =	{105},
  editor =	{Dargaye, Zaynah and Schneidewind, Clara},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-171834},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2},
  annote =	{Keywords: Smart Contracts, Formal Verification, Property-Based Testing, Coq}
}
  • Refine by Type
  • 5 Document/PDF
  • 4 Document/HTML

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 1 2026
  • 3 2025
  • 1 2022

  • Refine by Author
  • 1 Altenkirch, Thorsten
  • 1 Annenkov, Danil
  • 1 Bartoletti, Massimo
  • 1 Crafa, Silvia
  • 1 Ghanbari, Ali
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Series/Journal
  • 2 LIPIcs
  • 3 OASIcs

  • Refine by Classification
  • 2 Software and its engineering → Formal software verification
  • 2 Theory of computation → Type theory
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Formal methods
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Software maintenance tools
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Software verification and validation
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 1 Blockchain
  • 1 Categorical models of type theory
  • 1 Clone Detection
  • 1 Coq
  • 1 Formal Verification
  • Show More...

Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2026 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact