Advertisement

A Configurable CEGAR Framework with Interpolation-Based Refinements

  • Ákos HajduEmail author
  • Tamás Tóth
  • András Vörös
  • István Majzik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9688)

Abstract

Correctness of software components in a distributed system is a key issue to ensure overall reliability. Formal verification techniques such as model checking can show design flaws at early stages of development. Abstraction is a key technique for reducing complexity by hiding information, which is not relevant for verification. Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) is a verification algorithm that starts from a coarse abstraction and refines it iteratively until the proper precision is obtained. Many abstraction types and refinement strategies exist for systems with different characteristics. In this paper we show how these algorithms can be combined into a configurable CEGAR framework. In our framework we also present a new CEGAR configuration based on a combination of abstractions, being able to perform better for certain models. We demonstrate the use of the framework by comparing several configurations of the algorithms on various problems, identifying their advantages and shortcomings.

Keywords

Model Check Abstract State Safety Property Concrete State Predicate Abstraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was partially supported by the ARTEMIS JU and the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Fund in the frame of the R5-COP (Reconfigurable ROS-based Resilient Reasoning Robotic Cooperating Systems) project.

References

  1. 1.
    Beyer, D., Löwe, S.: Explicit-state software model checking based on CEGAR and interpolation. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013 (ETAPS 2013). LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 146–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer, D., Löwe, S., Wendler, P.: Refinement selection. In: Fischer, B., Geldenhuys, J. (eds.) SPIN 2015. LNCS, vol. 9232, pp. 20–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brückner, I., Dräger, K., Finkbeiner, B., Wehrheim, H.: Slicing abstractions. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4767, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabodi, G., Loiacono, C., Palena, M., Pasini, P., Patti, D., Quer, S., Vendraminetto, D., Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Baumgartner, J.: Hardware model checking competition 2014: an analysis and comparison of solvers and benchmarks. J. Satisfiability Boolean Model. Comput. 9, 135–172 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Gupta, A., Strichman, O.: SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 23(7), 1113–1123 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig, W.: Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. J. Symbolic Logic 22(03), 269–285 (1957)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutertre, B., Sorea, M., et al.: Timed systems in SAL. Technical report, SRI International, Computer Science Laboratory (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ermis, E., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Splitting via interpolants. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 186–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernández Adiego, B., Darvas, D., Blanco Viñuela, E., Tournier, J.C., Bliudze, S., Blech, J.O., González Suárez, V.M.: Applying model checking to industrial-sized PLC programs. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 11(6), 1400–1410 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 58–70. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McMillan, K.L.: Applications of Craig interpolants in model checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O.: Interpolation-sequence based model checking. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ákos Hajdu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tamás Tóth
    • 2
  • András Vörös
    • 1
    • 2
  • István Majzik
    • 2
  1. 1.MTA-BME Lendület Cyber-Physical Systems Research GroupBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Measurement and Information SystemsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations