Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 285–301 | Cite as

Automated assumption generation for compositional verification

  • Anubhav Gupta
  • K. L. McMillan
  • Zhaohui Fu


We describe a method for computing a minimum-state automaton to act as an intermediate assertion in assume-guarantee reasoning, using a sampling approach and a Boolean satisfiability solver. For a set of synthetic benchmarks intended to mimic common situations in hardware verification, this is shown to be significantly more effective than earlier approximate methods based on Angluin’s L* algorithm. For many of these benchmarks, this method also outperforms BDD-based model checking and interpolation-based model checking. We also demonstrate how domain knowledge can be incorporated into our algorithm to improve its performance.


Formal verification Model checking Compositional verification Assume-guarantee L* SAT Decision tree 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alur R, Madhusudan P, Nam W (2005) Symbolic compositional verification by learning assumptions. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer aided verification (CAV), pp 548–562 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angluin D (1987) Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf Comput 75:87–106 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biere A, Cimatti A, Clarke E, Zhu Y (1999) Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’99), LNCS Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cobleigh J, Giannakopoulou D, Pasareanu C (2003) Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaki S, Strichman O (2007) Optimized l*-based assume-guarantee reasoning. In: TACAS, pp 276–291 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gold EM (1978) Complexity of automaton identification from given data. Inf Comput 37:302–320 zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kam T, Villa T, Brayton R, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli AL (1997) Synthesis of FSMs: functional optimization. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McMillan KL Cadence SMV. Cadence Berkeley Labs, CA Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMillan KL (1993) Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic, Boston zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning. WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oliveira AL, Marques Silva JP (1998) Efficient search techniques for the inference of minimum size finite automata. In: Proceedings of the symposium on string processing and information retrieval (SPIRE), pp 81–89 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pena JM, Oliveira AL (1999) A new algorithm for exact reduction of incompletely specified finite state machines. IEEE Trans CAD Integr Circuits Syst 18(11):1619–1632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfleeger CF (1973) State reduction in incompletely specified finite state machines. IEEE Trans Comput C-22:1099–1102 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quinlan JR (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rivest RL, Schapire RE (1989) Inference of finite automata using homing sequences. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC). ACM Press, New York, pp 411–420 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sinha N, Clarke EM (2007) Sat-based compositional verification using lazy learning. In: CAV, pp 39–54 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cadence Design Systems, Inc.BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations