Advertisement

Towards Smaller Invariants for Proving Coverability

  • Lenka Turoňová
  • Lukáš HolíkEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10672)

Abstract

In this paper, we explore a possibility of improving existing methods for verification of parallel systems. We particularly concentrate on safety properties of well-structured transition systems. Our work has relevance mainly to recent methods that are based on finding an inductive invariant by a sequence of refinements learned from counterexamples. Our goal is to improve the overall efficiency of this approach by concentrating on choosing refinements that lead to a more succinct invariants. For this, we propose to analyze so called minimal counterexample runs. They are digests of counterexamples concise enough to allow for a more detailed analysis. We experimented with a simple refinement algorithm based on analysing minimal runs and succeeded in generating significantly more succinct invariants than the state-of-the-art methods.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A.: Well (and better) quasi-ordered transition systems. Bull. Symb. Log. 16(4), 457–515 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulla, P.A., Cerans, K., Jonsson, B., Tsay, Y.-K.: General decidability theorems for infinite-state systems. In: IEEE Computer Society LICS 1996, pp. 313–321 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.M.: SAT-based counterexample guided abstraction refinement. In: Bošnački, D., Leue, S. (eds.) SPIN 2002. LNCS, vol. 2318, pp. 1–1. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46017-9_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11609773_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaiser, A., Kroening, D., Wahl, T.: Bfc - a widening approach to multi-threaded program verification. http://www.cprover.org/bfc/
  7. 7.
    Kaiser, A., Kroening, D., Wahl, T.: Efficient coverability analysis by proof minimization. In: Koutny, M., Ulidowski, I. (eds.) CONCUR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7454, pp. 500–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32940-1_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kloos, J., Majumdar, R., Niksic, F., Piskac, R.: Incremental, inductive coverability. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 158–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-Based model checking. In: Hunt, W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyBrno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations