Abstract
Although the counterexample returned by a model checker can help in reproducing the symptom related to a defect, a significant amount of effort is often required for the programmer to interpret it in order to locate the cause. In this paper, we provide an automated procedure to zoom in to potential software defects by analyzing a single concrete counterexample. Our analysis relies on extracting from the counterexample a syntactic-level proof of infeasibility, i.e., a minimal set of word-level predicates that contradict with each other. The procedure uses an efficient weakest pre-condition algorithm carried out on a single concrete execution path, which is significantly more scalable than other model checking based approaches. Unlike most of the existing methods, we do not need additional execution traces other than the buggy one. We use public-domain examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of our new algorithm.
A whodunit, for “who done it?”, is a plot-driven variety of detective story in which the reader is provided with clues from which the identity of the perpetrator of the crime may be deduced. Examples are the Sherlock Holmes stories by Conan Doyle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agrawal, H., DeMillo, R.A., Spafford, E.H.: Debugging with dynamic slicing and backtracking. Software - Practice and Experience 23(6), 589–616 (1993)
Aloul, F.A., Sierawski, B.D., Sakallah, K.A.: Satometer: How much have we searched? In: Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 2002, pp. 737–742 (2002)
Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: Localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2003), January 2003, pp. 97–105 (2003)
Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Eisner, C., Rodeh, Y.: Efficient detection of vacuity in ACTL formulas. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 279–290. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)
Cleve, H., Zeller, A.: Locating causes of program failures. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (2005)
Coen-Porisini, A., Denaro, G., Ghezzi, C., Pezze, M.: Using symbolic execution for verifying safety-critical systems. In: European Software Engineering Conference/Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 142–151 (2001)
Dijkstra, E.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)
Griesmayer, A., Bloem, R., Cook, B.: Repair of boolean programs with an application to c. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Groce, A., Chaki, S., Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Error explanation with distance metrics. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (2005)
Groce, A., Visser, W.: What went wrong: Explaining counterexamples. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Gyimóthy, T., Beszédes, Á., Forgács, I.: An efficient relevant slicing method for debugging. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 303–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Jain, H., Ivančić, F., Gupta, A., Ganai, M.: Localization and register sharing for predicate abstraction. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 394–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Jain, H., Ivančić, F., Gupta, A., Shlyakhter, I., Wang, C.: Using statically computed invariants inside the predicate abstraction and refinement loop. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Jobstmann, B., Griesmayer, A., Bloem, R.: Program repair as a game. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 226–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Jones, J.A., Harrold, M.J., Stasko, J.: Visualization of test information to assist fault localization. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (2002)
Korel, B., Laski, J.W.: Dynamic slicing of computer programs. Journal of Systems and Software 13(3), 187–195 (1990)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Vacuity detection in temporal model checking. In: Pierre, L., Kropf, T. (eds.) CHARME 1999. LNCS, vol. 1703, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
McMillan, K.L., Amla, N.: Automatic abstraction without counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) ETAPS 2003 and TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Namjoshi, K.S., Kurshan, R.P.: Syntactic program transformations for automatic abstraction. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 435–449. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Purandare, M., Somenzi, F.: Vacuum cleaning CTL formulae. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 485–499. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Quielle, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium on Programming (1981)
Renieris, M., Reiss, S.P.: Fault localization with nearest neighbor queries. In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Montreal, Canada, October 2003, pp. 30–39 (2003)
Rothermel, G., Harrold, M.J.: Empirical studies of a safe regression test selection technique. Software Engineering 24, 401–419 (1999)
Staber, S., Jobstmann, B., Bloem, R.: Finding and fixing faults. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W. (eds.) CHARME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3725, pp. 35–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Zeller, A.: Isolating cause-effect chains from computer programs. In: Daemen, J., Rijmen, V. (eds.) FSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2365, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wang, C., Yang, Z., Ivančić, F., Gupta, A. (2006). Whodunit? Causal Analysis for Counterexamples. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4218. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-47237-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47238-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)