Papers › Automatic Goal Clone Detection in Rocq

Automatic Goal Clone Detection in Rocq

27 Apr 2025arXiv:2504.19129links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Ali Ghanbari

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

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 {\alpha}-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 {\alpha}-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 {\alpha}-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.

PaperPDFCode

Code

ali-ghanbari/clone-finder officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections