A Relational Separation Logic for Effect Handlers
Paulo Emílio de Vilhena, Simcha van Collem, Ines Wright, Robbert Krebbers
Abstract
Effect handlers offer a powerful and relatively simple mechanism for controlling a program’s flow of execution. Since their introduction, an impressive array of verification tools for effect handlers has been developed. However, to this day, no framework can express and prove relational properties about programs that use effect handlers in languages such as OCaml and Links, where programming features like mutable state and concurrency are readily available. To this end, we introduce blaze , the first relational separation logic for effect handlers. We build blaze on top of the Iris framework for concurrent separation logic in Rocq, thereby enjoying the rigour of a mechanised theory and all the reasoning properties of a modern fully-fledged concurrent separation logic, such as modular reasoning about stateful concurrent programs and the ability to introduce user-defined ghost state. In addition to familiar reasoning rules, such as the bind rule and the frame rule, blaze offers rules to reason modularly about programs that perform and handle effects. Significantly, when verifying that two programs are related, blaze does not require that effects and handlers from one program be in correspondence with effects and handlers from the other. To assess this flexibility, we conduct a number of case studies: most noticeably, we show how different implementations of an asynchronous-programming library using effects are related to truly concurrent implementations. As side contributions, we introduce two new, simple, and general reasoning rules for concurrent relational separation logic that are independent of effects: a logical-fork rule that allows one to reason about an arbitrary program phrase as if it had been spawned as a thread and a thread-swap rule that allows one to reason about how threads are scheduled.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext ca18dd27-adab-4013-a7e3-dc39e8e355d5Cited by top-tier papers2
- Backwards-Compatible Row-Based Exceptions in MLSimcha van Collem, Paulo Emílio de Vilhena, Robbert KrebbersPLDI 2026
- CRIS: The Power of Imagination in Hybrid VerificationYonghee Kim, Taeyoung Yoon, Sanghyun Yi, Jaehyung Lee et al.PLDI 2026
Builds on7
- Binders by day, labels by night: effect instances via lexically scoped handlersDariusz Biernacki, Maciej Piróg, Piotr Polesiuk, Filip SieczkowskiPOPL 2020 · 46 citations
- Simuliris: a separation logic framework for verifying concurrent program optimizationsLennard Gäher, Michael Sammler, Simon Spies, Ralf Jung et al.POPL 2022 · 33 citations
- A separation logic for effect handlersPaulo Emílio de Vilhena, François PottierPOPL 2021 · 24 citations
- Soundly Handling LinearityWenhao Tang, Daniel Hillerström, Sam Lindley, J. Garrett MorrisPOPL 2024 · 8 citations
- Affect: An Affine Type and Effect SystemOrpheas van Rooij, Robbert KrebbersPOPL 2025 · 7 citations
Related papers
- Melocoton: A Program Logic for Verified Interoperability Between OCaml and CArmaël Guéneau, Johannes Hostert, Simon Spies, Michael Sammler et al.OOPSLA 2023 · 10 citations
- Program Logics à la CarteMax Vistrup, Michael Sammler, Ralf JungPOPL 2025 · 4 citations
- Beyond Backtracking: Connections in Fine-Grained Concurrent Separation LogicIke Mulder, Lukasz Czajka, Robbert KrebbersPLDI 2023 · 2 citations
- Lawyer: Modular Obligations-Based Liveness Reasoning in Higher-Order Impredicative Concurrent Separation LogicEgor Namakonov, Justus Fasse, Bart Jacobs, Lars Birkedal et al.OOPSLA 2026
- Contextual Refinement of Higher-Order Concurrent Probabilistic ProgramsKwing Hei Li, Alejandro Aguirre, Joseph Tassarotti, Lars BirkedalPLDI 2026
