Advertisement

Ilinva: Using Abduction to Generate Loop Invariants

  • Mnacho Echenim
  • Nicolas Peltier
  • Yanis SellamiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11715)

Abstract

We describe a system to prove properties of programs. The key feature of this approach is a method to automatically synthesize inductive invariants of the loops contained in the program. The method is generic, i.e., it applies to a large set of programming languages and application domains; and lazy, in the sense that it only generates invariants that allow one to derive the required properties. It relies on an existing system called GPiD for abductive reasoning modulo theories [14], and on the platform for program verification Why3 [16]. Experiments show evidence of the practical relevance of our approach.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    SATCONV benchmarksGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abdulot framework/GPiD-Ilinva tool suite. https://github.com/sellamiy/GPiD-Framework
  8. 8.
    Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Invariant synthesis for combined theories. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, VMCAI 2007, Nice (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradley, A.R.: IC3 and beyond: incremental, inductive verification. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 4–4. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z.: Property-directed incremental invariant generation. Formal Asp. Comput. 20(4–5), 379–405 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1978. ACM, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming, 1st edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dillig, I., Dillig, T., Li, B., McMillan,: Inductive invariant generation via abductive inference. In: Hosking, A.L., Eugster, P.T., Lopes, C.V. (eds.) Proceedings of OOPSLA 2013, Indianapolis, pp. 443–456. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Echenim, M., Peltier, N., Sellami, Y.: A generic framework for implicate generation modulo theories. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10900, pp. 279–294. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ernst, M.D., Cockrell, J., Griswold, W.G., Notkin, D.: Dynamically discovering likely program invariants to support program evolution. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1999, pp. 213–224. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Paskevich, A.: Why3 — where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M.: Houdini, an annotation assistant for ESC/Java. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 500–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45251-6_29. Kindly provide volume number for Ref. [18]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghilardi, S., Ranise, S.: Backward reachability of array-based systems by SMT solving: termination and invariant synthesis. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 6(4) (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Software verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44829-2_17CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kapur, D.: A quantifier-elimination based heuristic for automatically generating inductive assertions for programs. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 19, 307–330 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karbyshev, A., Bjørner, N., Itzhaky, S., Rinetzky, N., Shoham, S.: Property-directed inference of universal invariants or proving their absence. J. ACM 64(1), 71–733 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: Finding loop invariants for programs over arrays using a theorem prover. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, FASE 2009, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2009, York, UK, 22–29 March 2009, pp. 470–485 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kovács, L., Voronkov, A.: Interpolation and symbol elimination. In: Schmidt, R.A. (ed.) CADE 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5663, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02959-2_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miné, A.: The octagon abstract domain. Higher Order Symbol. Comput. 19, 31–100 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Padon, O., Immerman, N., Shoham, S., Karbyshev, A., Sagiv, M.: Decidability of inferring inductive invariants. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016, pp. 217–231 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suzuki, N., Ishihata, K.: Implementation of an array bound checker (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mnacho Echenim
    • 1
  • Nicolas Peltier
    • 1
  • Yanis Sellami
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations