Skip to main content

Minimizing Counterexample with Unit Core Extraction and Incremental SAT

  • Conference paper
Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 3385))

Abstract

It is a hotly researching topic to eliminate irrelevant variables from counterexample, to make it easier to be understood. K Ravi proposes a two-stages counterexample minimization algorithm. This algorithm is the most effective one among all existing approaches, but time overhead of its second stage(called BFL) is very large due to one call to SAT solver per candidate variable to be eliminated. So we propose a faster counterexample minimization algorithm based on unit core extraction and incremental SAT. First, for every unsatisfiable instance of BFL, we perform unit core extraction algorithm to extract the set of variables that are sufficient to lead to conflict, all variables not belong to this set can be eliminated simultaneously. In this way, we can eliminate many variables with only one call to SAT solver. At the same time, we employ incremental SAT approach to share learned clauses between similar instances of BFL, to prevent overlapped state space from being searched repeatedly. Theoretic analysis and experiment result show that, our approach is 1 order of magnitude faster than K Ravi’s algorithm, and still retains its ability to eliminate irrelevant variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clarke, E., Gupta, A., Kukula, J., Strichman, O.: SAT based abstractionrefinement using ILP and machine learning. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 265–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Chauhan, P., Clarke, E.M., Kroening, D.: Using SAT based Image Computation for Reachability Analysis. technology report CMU-CS-03-151, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (September 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Kang, H.-J., Park, I.-C.: SAT-Based Unbounded Symbolic Model Checking. In: Proceeding of DAC 2003, Anaheim, California, USA, June 2-6 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ravi, K., Somenzi, F.: Minimal Assignments for Bounded Model Checking. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Jin, H., Ravi, K., Somenzi, F.: Fate and free will in error traces. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 445–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic Model Checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Design Automation (DAC 1999), pp. 317–320 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In: ICCAD (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 530–535 (June 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. http://www.cbl.ncsu.edu/CBL_Docs/iscas89.html

  12. Een, N., Sorensson, N.: Temporal Induction by Incremental SAT Solving. In: Proc. of the First International Workshop on Bounded Model Checking (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gastin, P., Moro, P., Zeitoun, M.: Minimization of counterexamples in spin. In: SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, pp. 92–108 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Groce, A., Kroening, D.: Making the Most of BMC Counterexamples. In: The second international workshop on Bounded Model Checking, BMC 2004 (2004) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Glusman, M., Kamhi, G., Mador-Haim, S., Fraer, R., Vardi, M.Y.: Multiple-Counterexample Guided Iterative Abstraction Refinement: An Industrial Evaluation. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating sat solvers using an independent resolutionbased checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: Proceedings of Design Automation and Test in Europe, DATE 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for cnf formulas. In: Proceedings of Design Automation and Test in Europe, DATE 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shen, S., Qin, Y., Li, S. (2005). Minimizing Counterexample with Unit Core Extraction and Incremental SAT. In: Cousot, R. (eds) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation. VMCAI 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3385. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30579-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30579-8_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-24297-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30579-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics