SAT-Based Summarization for Boolean Programs

  • Gérard Basler
  • Daniel Kroening
  • Georg Weissenbacher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4595)


Boolean programs are frequently used to model abstractions of software programs. They have the advantage that reachability properties are decidable, despite the fact that their stack is not bounded. The enabling technique is summarization of procedure calls. Most model checking tools for Boolean programs use BDDs to represent these summaries, allowing for efficient fix-point detection. However, BDDs are highly sensitive to the number of state variables. We present an approach to over-approximate summaries using Bounded Model Checking. Our technique is based on a SAT solver and requires only few calls to a QBF solver for fix-point detection. Our benchmarks show that our implementation is able handle a larger number of variables than BDD-based algorithms on some examples.


Model Check Reachable State Symbolic State Bound Model Check Model Check Algorithm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Bebop: A symbolic model checker for Boolean programs. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) SPIN Model Checking and Software Verification. LNCS, vol. 1885, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: Boolean programs: A model and process for software analysis. Technical Report 2000-14, Microsoft Research (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Büchi, J.R.: Regular canonical systems. Archive for Mathematical Logic 6, 91 (1964)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharir, M., Pnueli, A.: Two approaches to interprocedural data dalow analysis. In: Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications, pp. 189–233. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esparza, J., Hansel, D., Rossmanith, P., Schwoon, S.: Efficient algorithms for model checking pushdown systems. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 232–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers 35, 677–691 (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook, B., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N.: Symbolic model checking for asynchronous Boolean programs. In: Godefroid, P. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 3639, pp. 75–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: Counterexamples with loops for predicate abstraction. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 152–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ball, T., Cook, B., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: SLAM and Static Driver Verifier: Technology transfer of formal methods inside Microsoft. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G.P. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkel, A., Willems, B., Wolper, P.: A direct symbolic approach to model checking pushdown systems. ENTCS 9 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwoon, S.: Model-Checking Pushdown Systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lal, A., Reps, T.: Improving pushdown system model checking. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bouajjani, A., Esparza, J.: Rewriting models of Boolean programs. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) RTA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4098, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouajjani, A., Esparza, J., Touili, T.: A generic approach to the static analysis of concurrent programs with procedures. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 62–73. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouajjani, A., Touili, T.: On computing reachability sets of process rewrite systems. In: Giesl, J. (ed.) RTA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3467, pp. 484–499. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qadeer, S., Rehof, J.: Context-bounded model checking of concurrent software. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 93–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Touili, T., Sighireanu, M.: Bounded communication reachability analysis of bounded communication reachability analysis of process rewrite systems with ordered parallelism. In: Verification of Infinite State Systems (INFINITY), Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook, B., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N.: Over-approximating Boolean programs with unbounded thread creation. In: Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 53–59. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leino, K.R.M.: A SAT characterization of Boolean-program correctness. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 104–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Efficient computation of recurrence diameters. In: Zuck, L.D., Attie, P.C., Cortesi, A., Mukhopadhyay, S. (eds.) VMCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2575, pp. 298–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Terminator: Beyond safety. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benedetti, M.: Evaluating QBFs via symbolic skolemization. In: Baader, F., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3452, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gérard Basler
    • 1
  • Daniel Kroening
    • 1
  • Georg Weissenbacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Systems Institute, ETH Zurich, 8092 ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations