Advertisement

A Forward-Backward Abstraction Refinement Algorithm

  • Francesco Ranzato
  • Olivia Rossi Doria
  • Francesco Tapparo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4905)

Abstract

Abstraction refinement-based model checking has become a standard approach for efficiently verifying safety properties of hardware/software systems. Abstraction refinement algorithms can be guided by counterexamples generated from abstract transition systems or by fixpoints computed in abstract domains. Cousot, Ganty and Raskin recently put forward a new fixpoint-guided abstraction refinement algorithm that is based on standard abstract interpretation and improves the state-of-the-art, also for counterexample-driven methods. This work presents a new fixpoint-guided abstraction refinement algorithm that enhances the Cousot-Ganty-Raskin’s procedure. Our algorithm is based on three main ideas: (1) within each abstraction refinement step, we perform multiple forward-backward abstract state space traversals; (2) our abstraction is a disjunctive abstract domain that is used both as an overapproximation and an underapproximation; (3) we maintain and iteratively refine an overapproximation M of the set of states that belong to some minimal (i.e. shortest) counterexample to the given safety property so that each abstract state space traversal is limited to the states in M.

Keywords

Model Check Safety Property Abstract Interpretation Abstract Domain Abstract Exploration 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM Project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In: Proc. 29th ACM POPL, pp. 1–3 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaki, S., et al.: Modular verification of software components in C. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(6), 388–402 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E., et al.: Progress on the State Explosion Problem in Model Checking. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Dagstuhl Seminar 2000. LNCS, vol. 2000, pp. 176–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., et al.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P.: Mèthodes itèratives de construction et d’approximation de points fixes d’opèrateurs monotones sur un treillis, analyse sèmantique de programmes. PhD Thesis, Univ.de Grenoble, France (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Proc. 6th ACM POPL, pp. 269–282 (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation and application to logic programs. J. Logic Programming 13(2-3), 103–179 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Refining model checking by abstract interpretation. Automated Software Engineering 6(1), 69–95 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cousot, P., Ganty, P., Raskin, J.-F.: Fixpoint-Guided Abstraction Refinements. In: Riis Nielson, H., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 333–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured transition systems everywhere! Theoretical Computer Science 256(1-2), 63–92 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ganty, P.: The Fixpoint Checking Problem: An Abstraction Refinement Perspective. PhD Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganty, P., Raskin, J.F., Van Begin, L.: A Complete Abstract Interpretation Framework for Coverability Properties of WSTS. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ganty, P., Raskin, J.F., Van Begin, L.: From Many Places to Few: Automatic Abstraction Refinement for Petri Nets. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 124–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gulavani, B.S., Rajamani, S.K.: Counterexample Driven Refinement for Abstract Interpretation. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006 and ETAPS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 474–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henzinger, T.A., et al.: Lazy abstraction. In: Proc. 29th ACM POPL, pp. 58–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henzinger, T.A., et al.: Software Verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manevich, R., et al.: Abstract Counterexample-Based Refinement for Powerset Domains. In: Reps, T., Sagiv, M., Bauer, J. (eds.) Wilhelm Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 4444, pp. 273–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Massé, D.: Combining Forward and Backward Analyses of Temporal Properties. In: Danvy, O., Filinski, A. (eds.) PADO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2053, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: An Abstract Interpretation-Based Refinement Algorithm for Strong Preservation. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Ranzato
    • 1
  • Olivia Rossi Doria
    • 1
  • Francesco Tapparo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Matematica Pura ed ApplicataUniversità di PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations