KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 43–49 | Cite as

Practical Aspects of Automated Deduction for Program Verification

  • Wolfgang Ahrendt
  • Bernhard Beckert
  • Martin Giese
  • Philipp Rümmer
Fachbeitrag
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Software is vital for modern society. It is used in many safety- or security-critical applications, where a high degree of correctness is desirable. Over the last years, technologies for the formal specification and verification of software—using logic-based specification languages and automated deduction—have matured and can be expected to complement and partly replace traditional software engineering methods in the future. Program verification is an increasingly important application area for automated deduction. The field has outgrown the area of academic case studies, and industry is showing serious interest. This article describes the aspects of automated deduction that are important for program verification in practise, and it gives an overview of the reasoning mechanisms, the methodology, and the architecture of modern program verification systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahrendt W (2002) Deductive search for errors in free data type specifications using model generation. In: Voronkov A (ed) Proceedings of 18th international conference on automated deduction (CADE-18), Copenhagen, Denmark. LNCS, vol 2392. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrendt W, Beckert B, Hähnle R, Rümmer P, Schmitt PH (2007) Verifying object-oriented programs with KeY: a tutorial. In: de Boer F, Bonsangue M, Graf S, de Roever W (eds) Revised lectures. 5th international symposium on formal methods for components and objects (FMCO 2006), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. LNCS, vol 4709. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arts T, Giesl J (2000) Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor Comput Sci 236(1–2):133–178 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett M, Leino R, Schulte W (2005) The Spec# programming system: An overview. In: Construction and analysis of safe, secure, and interoperable smart devices (CASSIS). International workshop, 2004, Marseille, France, Revised Selected Papers. LNCS, vol 3362. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–69 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett C, Tinelli C (2007) CVC3. In: Damm W, Hermanns H (eds) Proceedings of 19th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV ’07). LNCS, vol 4590. Springer, Berlin, pp 298–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckert B, Hähnle R, Schmitt PH (eds) (2007) Verification of object-oriented software: the KeY approach. LNCS, vol 4334. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beckert B., Moskal M. (2010) Deductive verification of system software in the Verisoft XT project. KI (in this issue) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertot Y (2008) A short presentation of Coq. In: Aït Mohamed O, Muñoz C, Tahar S (eds) Proceedings of 21st international conference on theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs), Montreal, Canada. LNCS, vol 5170. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradley AR, Manna Z, Sipma HB (2005) Termination of polynomial programs. In: Cousot R (ed) VMCAI. LNCS, vol 3385. Springer, Berlin, pp 113–129 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claessen K, Sörensson N (2003) New techniques that improve MACE-style model finding. In: Proc of workshop on model computation (MODEL) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Moura L, Bjørner N (2008) Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Proceedings of the 14th international conference, Budapest, Hungary. LNCS, vol 4963. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–340 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLine R, Leino KRM (2005) BoogiePL: a typed procedural language for checking object-oriented programs. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-70. Microsoft Research Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dutertre B (2007) System description: Yices 1.0.10. In: SMT-COMP’07 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falke S, Kapur D (2009) A term rewriting approach to the automated termination analysis of imperative programs. In: Schmidt RA (ed) CADE. LNCS, vol 5663. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–293 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filliâtre J-C, Marché C (2004) Multi-prover verification of C programs. In: Proceedings, formal methods and software engineering. LNCS, vol 3308. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giese M (2001) Incremental closure of free variable tableaux. In: Proc intl joint conf on automated reasoning, Siena, Italy. LNCS, vol 2083. Springer, Berlin, pp 545–560 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harrison J (1996) HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Srivas MK, Camilleri AJ (eds) Proceedings, first international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), Palo Alto, USA. LNCS, vol 1166. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–269 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoare CAR (1969) An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun ACM 12(10):576–580, 583 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ireland A, Kovács L (eds) (2009) WING 2009, Workshop on invariant generation Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaufmann M, Manolios P, Moore JS (2000) Computer-aided reasoning: an approach. Kluwer Academic, Boston Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein G, Elphinstone K, Heiser G, Andronick J, Cock D, Derrin P, Elkaduwe D, Engelhardt K, Kolanski R, Norrish M, Sewell T, Tuch H, Winwood S (2009) seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM symposium on operating systems principles, Big Sky, MT, USA. ACM, October 2009 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Podelski A, Rybalchenko A (2004) A complete method for the synthesis of linear ranking functions. In: VMCAI. LNCS, vol 2937. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–251 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rümmer P (2007) A sequent calculus for integer arithmetic with counterexample generation. In: Proceedings, 4th international verification workshop (VERIFY’07). CEUR, vol 259 (http://ceur-ws.org/)
  24. 24.
    Rümmer P, Shah MA (2007) Proving programs incorrect using a sequent calculus for Java dynamic logic. In: Gurevich Y, Meyer B (eds) Tests and proofs, first international conference, TAP 2007, Zurich, Switzerland, February 12–13, 2007. Revised papers. LNCS, vol 4454. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–60 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schulte W, Songtao X, Smans J, Piessens F (2007) A glimpse of a verifying C compiler. In: Proceedings, C/C++ Verification workshop Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shankar N (2002) Little engines of proof. In: Proceedings, international symposium of formal methods Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. LNCS, vol 2391. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–20 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Velroyen H, Rümmer P (2008) Non-termination checking for imperative programs. In: Beckert B, Hähnle R (eds) Tests and proofs, second international conference, TAP 2008, Prato, Italy. LNCS, vol 4966. Springer, Berlin, pp 154–170 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenzel M, Paulson LC, Nipkow T (2008) The Isabelle framework. In: Mohamed OA, Muñoz C, Tahar S (eds) Proceedings of 21st international conference on theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs), Montreal, Canada. LNCS, vol 5170. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Ahrendt
    • 1
  • Bernhard Beckert
    • 2
  • Martin Giese
    • 3
  • Philipp Rümmer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSchweden
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorwegen
  4. 4.Computing LaboratoryOxford UniversityOxfordVK

Personalised recommendations