Some advances in tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems

Introduction

Abstract

Because of the complexity of software systems and their increasing criticality, there is a pressing need for sophisticated and highly automated tools for the analysis of software artifacts and their expected behavioral properties. A growing body of research is using formal methods to produce increasingly powerful and scalable analysis tools, although several challenges still remain. We briefly outline some recent achievements in automated analysis represented by four selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015). Two of the selected papers describe major achievements in the field of parallel model checking. The third paper presents an auto-active theorem prover for the verification of Eiffel programs. The fourth paper reports on a non-trivial case study with hybrid automata and interactive theorem proving techniques.

Keywords

Computer-aided verification Theorem proving Program analysis Model checking 

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A., Aronis, S., Atig, M.F., Jonsson, B., Leonardsson, C., Sagonas, K.: Stateless model checking for TSO and PSO. Acta Informatica. doi:10.1007/s00236 (2016)
  2. 2.
    Alur, R.: Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9035. Springer, 2015. Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS), 2015, London, UK, 11–18 April 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, vol. 185, pp. 825–885. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009). (Chapter 26)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 10\(^20\) states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98(2), 142–170 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chistikov, D., Dimitrova, R., Majumdar, R.: Approximate counting in SMT and value estimation for probabilistic programs. Acta Informatica. doi:10.1007/s00236-017-0297-2 (2017)
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 2(4), 511–547 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3—where programs meet provers. In: European Symposium on Programming, pp. 125–128. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M., Lillibridge, M., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Extended static checking for Java. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 234–245 (June 2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Polikarpova, N., Tschannen, J.: AutoProof: auto-active functional verification of object-oriented programs. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) (2017, this issue)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giacobbe, M., Guet, C.C., Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A., Paixao, T., Petrov, T.: Model checking the evolution of gene regulatory networks. Acta Informatica. doi:10.1007/s00236-016-0278-x (2017)
  13. 13.
    Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T. (eds.) Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2500 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrison, J.: Formal verification. In: Broy, M., Leuxner, C., Hoare, T. (eds.) Software and Systems Safety—Specification and Verification, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - D: Information and Communication Security, vol. 30, pp 103–157. IOS Press (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henzinger, T.A., Sifakis, J.: The embedded systems design challenge. In: International Symposium on Formal Methods, pp. 1–15. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeannin, J.-B., Ghorbal, K., Kouskoulas, Y., Schmidt, A., Gardner, R., Mitsch, S., Platzer, A.: A formally verified hybrid system for safe advisories in the next-generation airborne collision avoidance system. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) (2017, this issue)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, E.A., Seshia, S.A.: Introduction to Embedded Systems: A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Dafny: An automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, pp. 348–370. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M., Moskal, M.: Usable auto-active verification. In: Usable Verification Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prasad, M.R., Biere, A., Gupta, A.: A survey of recent advances in SAT-based formal verification. STTT 7(2), 156–173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renault, E., Duret-Lutz, A., Kordon, F., Poitrenaud, D.: Variations of parallel explicit emptiness checks for generalized Büchi automata. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) (2017, this issue)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Dijk, T., van de Pol J.: Sylvan: multi-core framework for decision diagrams. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) (2017, this issue)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Automata-theoretic model checking revisited. In: 8th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4349, pp. 137–150. Springer (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.The University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations