Developments in automated verification techniques

  • Cormac Flanagan
  • Barbara KönigEmail author


Tools that implement automated verification techniques can be used to fruitfully analyze and validate complex software systems. Developing such tools is an active research area that has produced several promising techniques in the last decade: however, many challenges lie ahead. We briefly review the research area and summarize four papers selected from the Eighteenth International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2012).


Verification Analysis tools Model-checking 


  1. 1.
    Armando, A., Mantovani, J., Platania, L.: Bounded model checking of software using SMT solvers instead of SAT solvers. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 11(1), 69–83 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouajjani, A., Emmi, M.: Bounded phase analysis of message-passing programs. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10009-013-0276-z
  3. 3.
    Burkart, O., Steffen, B.: Model checking for context-free processes. In Proceedings of CONCUR ’92, pp. 123–137. Springer, LNCS 630 (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkart, O., Steffen, B.: Pushdown processes: parallel composition and model checking. In: Proceedings of CONCUR ’94, pp. 98–113. Springer, LNCS 836 (1994) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox, A., Sankaranarayanan, S., Evan Chang, B.-Y.: A bit too precise? Verification of quantized digital filters. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10009-013-0279-9
  7. 7.
    Distefano, D., O’Hearn, P.W., Yang, H.: A local shape analysis based on separation logic. In: Proceedings of TACAS ’06, pp. 287–302. Springer, LNCS 3920 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esparza, J., Hansel, D., Rossmanith, P., Schwoon, S.: Efficient algorithms for model checking pushdown systems. In: Proceedings of CAV ’00, pp. 232–247. Springer, LNCS 1855 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured transition systems everywhere! Theor. Comput. Sci. 256(1–2), 63–92 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Proceedings of POPL ’04, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang, Z., Pajic, M., Alur, R., Mangharam, R.: Closed-loop verification of medical devices with model abstraction and refinement. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10009-013-0289-7
  12. 12.
    Qadeer, S., Rehof, J.: Context-bounded model checking of concurrent software. In Proceedings of TACAS ’05, pp. 93–107. Springer, LNCS 3440 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rice, H.G.: Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 74 (1953)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. TOPLAS (ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.) 24(3), 217–298 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song, F., Touili, T.: Pushdown model-checking for malware detection. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10009-013-0290-1

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations