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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM Project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In: Proc. 29th ACM POPL, pp. 1–3 (2002)
Chaki, S., et al.: Modular verification of software components in C. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(6), 388–402 (2004)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
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)
Clarke, E.M., et al.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)
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)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: Proc. 6th ACM POPL, pp. 269–282 (1979)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation and application to logic programs. J. Logic Programming 13(2-3), 103–179 (1992)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Refining model checking by abstract interpretation. Automated Software Engineering 6(1), 69–95 (1999)
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)
Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured transition systems everywhere! Theoretical Computer Science 256(1-2), 63–92 (2001)
Ganty, P.: The Fixpoint Checking Problem: An Abstraction Refinement Perspective. PhD Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles (2007)
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)
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)
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)
Henzinger, T.A., et al.: Lazy abstraction. In: Proc. 29th ACM POPL, pp. 58–70 (2002)
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)
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)
Massé, D.: Combining Forward and Backward Analyses of Temporal Properties. In: Danvy, O., Filinski, A. (eds.) PADO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2053, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ranzato, F., Doria, O.R., Tapparo, F. (2008). A Forward-Backward Abstraction Refinement Algorithm. In: Logozzo, F., Peled, D.A., Zuck, L.D. (eds) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation. VMCAI 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4905. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78163-9_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78163-9_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78162-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78163-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)