# Quicksort in Coq

Coq’s support for dependent types mean that type checking not only catches trivial errors like passing an integer to a function expecting a string, but it can also check and verify types which represent properties regarding the functional behavior of the a program.

I thought it would be edifying to use this capability to write a verified version of quicksort (i.e. a quicksort with types that specify its behavior), and it was!

# Basic Quicksort

So first let’s just write quicksort, and then we’ll see what dependent types can add.

## A First Attempt

This was my initial attempt at writing quicksort in Coq (first w/o the more complex types):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
Fixpoint quicksort (l:list nat) : list nat := match l with | nil => nil | x :: xs => let (lhs, rhs) := partition (gtb x) xs in (quicksort lhs) ++ x :: (quicksort rhs) end. |

Looked pretty good, I thought! It was nice and simple... until I tried to compile it:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
Error: Recursive definition of quicksort is ill-formed. In environment quicksort : list nat -> list nat l : list nat x : nat xs : list nat rhs : list nat lhs : list nat Recursive call to quicksort has principal argument equal to "lhs" instead of "xs"... |

Of course - my recursive calls are not structurally recursive (i.e. they’re not on the structural pieces that make up the input), so Coq isn’t convinced our recursive calls will terminate.

Coq requires all programs to be total and deterministic to ensure its logic is sound.

## Guaranteeing Termination

Doing a little digging, I discover that one way to write functions which Coq cannot infer termination for is using the keywords "Program" and "measure":

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
Program Fixpoint quicksort (l:list nat) {measure (length l)} : list nat := match l with | nil => nil | x :: xs => match partition (leb x) xs with | (rhs, lhs) => (quicksort lhs) ++ x :: (quicksort rhs) end end. |

Now Coq knows that the decreasing argument to be measured is the length of the input (from {measure (length l)}), and it knows that I am... "Program"-ing... err... I mean it may also generate proof obligations from this fixpoint definition (which is what Program specifies).

Okay, so I compiled it and then I got some new messages (woohoo!).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 |
quicksort has type-checked, generating 3 obligation(s) Solving obligations automatically... quicksort_obligation_3 is defined 2 obligations remaining Obligation 1 of quicksort: forall l : list nat, (forall l0 : list nat, length l0 < length l -> list nat) -> forall (x : nat) (xs : list nat), x :: xs = l -> let filtered_var := partition (leb x) xs in forall rhs lhs : list nat, (rhs, lhs) = filtered_var -> length lhs < length l. Obligation 2 of quicksort: forall l : list nat, (forall l0 : list nat, length l0 < length l -> list nat) -> forall (x : nat) (xs : list nat), x :: xs = l -> let filtered_var := partition (leb x) xs in forall rhs lhs : list nat, (rhs, lhs) = filtered_var -> length rhs < length l. |

Cool - two obligations. To solve these (which just verify the length of the inputs to the recursive calls (lhs and rhs) are <= the length of the original input) I used "Next Obligation of quicksort." twice, applying a little theorem proving where needed. After proving both, I got:

1 2 |
No more obligations remaining quicksort is defined |

Side note: You may have noticed I swapped out the "let" statement in the original attempt for a "match" statement - but why? Well, using the "let" left me proving the facts about lhs and rhs without any evidence as to where they came from. Match, on the other hand, gave me the assumption "(lhs, rhs) = partition (gtb x) xs", which was important since that fact was key to proving their size was less than the original input. Kind of lame that I couldn’t use the let (it seemed more direct and elegant), but oh well.

# Verified Quicksort

So writing quicksort wasn’t too bad. I learned a little about how proof obligations work with respect to the termination of fixpoints. But what about verifying it actually sorts the list we’ve given it? How do we know it is correct?

## Is testing good enough?

I could throw a few tests cases at it to feel a little better about its correctness:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
Example qs_nil: quicksort [] = []. Proof. auto. Qed. Example qs_ex1: quicksort [3 ; 2 ; 1] = [1 ; 2 ; 3]. Proof with auto. compute... Qed. |

But we still can’t be 100% certain it is correct. In fact, in this case a list reverse would have passed these tests! So in general, what can we do if we want to formally verify a program? In a language like Coq there are multiple ways to do this!

## Proving Quicksort Correct with Dependent Types

There’s two primary approaches to verifying functions in Coq: You can write a theorem stating quicksort is correct and prove it valid, or you can add the specification to the type of quicksort itself. Let’s do the latter.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
Program Fixpoint quicksort (l:list nat) {measure (length l)} : {sl : list nat | Permutation l sl /\ StronglySorted le sl} := match l with | nil => nil | x :: xs => match partition (gtb x) xs with | (lhs, rhs) => (quicksort lhs) ++ x :: (quicksort rhs) end end. |

This approach looks like our original version, except that our return type is not merely a list of nat, but a list of nat such that it is a permutation of the original and it is sorted (yes, that is all in the return type). Obligations for the predicate portion of the return type (Permutation l sl /\ StronglySorted le sl) must be proven as well if Coq cannot automatically prove them (and in this case, it cannot).

The first obligation related to the return type is for the empty list case (nil), which is trivial (since quicksort merely returns nil, which is a permutation of nil and is sorted). In the second such obligation, we assume these properties hold for the recursive calls (quicksort lhs) and (quicksort rhs) (that they produce sorted partitions of their input - this is our inductive hypothesis) and prove these properties are maintained by (quicksort lhs) ++ x :: (quicksort rhs). With the use of a few lemmas related to partitioning and appending sorted lists that are related (such as how our two are in this case) this isn’t these properties aren’t too bad to verify.

Suggestions and comments always welcome =)