Verified software: theories, tools and experiments

  • Daniel KroeningEmail author
  • Tiziana Margaria


The importance of verification for software products is being increasingly appreciated in industry, although still not to the level to make it a standard approach to high quality software in industry. Since 2005, a global initiative has been underway, started by eminent researchers in both industry and academia, with the aim of establishing and disseminating a culture of software verification from first principles by means of theories, tools and experiments. This special section contains a selection of contributions originally presented at the 2008 Workshop on Tools at VSTTE 2008, the conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools and Experiments, in Toronto. The VSTTE series of conferences and workshops focuses on the challenge of verifying software systems. Within VSTTE, the scope of the Tools workshop are implementations and enabling techniques for program verifiers, which are important ingredients for the dissemination of principles and techniques among industrial practitioners. This special section complements a sister special section of the Journal on Formal Aspects of computing, Springer. While the FACJ papers address more foundational aspects of tool-based verification and tool construction, the present section presents two toolsets, reflections on usability for verification tools and a novel abstraction technique.


Software verification Program analysis Verified software 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hoare C.A.R.: The verifying compiler: a grand challenge for computing research. J. ACM 50(1), 63–69 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.): Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments, First IFIP TC 2/WG 2.3 Conference, VSTTE 2005, Zurich, Switzerland, October 10–13, 2005, Revised Selected Papers and Discussions, volume 4171 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooke J.: Editorial (VSTTE special issue). Formal Asp. Comput. 19(2), 137–138 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoare, C.A.R., Misra, J., Leavens, G.T., Shankar, N.: The verified software initiative: a manifesto. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4) (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jörges, S., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Assuring property conformance of code generators via model checking. Formal Asp. Comput., in publication (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sitaraman, M., Adcock, B., Avigad, J., Bronish, D., Bucci, P. et al.: Building a push-button resolve verifier: Progress and challenges. Formal Asp. Comput., in publication (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braghin, C., Sharygina, N., Barone-Adesi, K.: A model checking-based approach for security policy verification of mobile systems. Formal Asp. Comput., in publication (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mani Chandy, K., Go, B., Mitra, S., Pilotto, C., White, J.: Verification of distributed systems with local-global predicates. Formal Asp. Comput., in publication (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gurfinkel, A., Chaki, S.: Combining predicate and numeric abstraction for software model checking. STTT, Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transf. (2010, this volume). doi: 10.1007/s10009-010-0162-x
  10. 10.
    Ball, T., Cook, B., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: SLAM and Static Driver Verifier: Technology transfer of formal methods inside Microsoft. In Integrated Formal Methods (IFM), volume 2999 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–20. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In POPL, pp. 58–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke E.M., Kroening D., Sharygina N., Yorav K.: Predicate abstraction of ANSI-C programs using SAT. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 25(2–3), 105–127 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chalin, P., Robby, James, P., Lee, J., Karabotsos, G.: Towards an industrial grade IVE for Java and next generation research platform for JML. STTT, Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transf. (2010, this volume). doi: 10.1007/s10009-010-0164-8
  14. 14.
    Robby, Chalin, P.: Preliminary design of a unified JML representation and software infrastructure. In: Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), pp. 1–7. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Son Hoang, T., Mehta, F., Voisin, L.: Rodin: An open toolset for modelling and reasoning in event-b. STTT, Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transf. (2010, this volume) doi: 10.1007/s10009-010-0145-y
  16. 16.
    Abrial J.-R.: The B-book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cok, D.: Improved usability and performance of smt solvers for debugging specifications. STTT, Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transf. (2010, this volume). doi: 10.1007/s10009-010-0138-x

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Chair Service and Software EngineeringUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations