Abstract
A new form of SAT-based symbolic model checking is described. Instead of unrolling the transition relation, it incrementally generates clauses that are inductive relative to (and augment) stepwise approximate reachability information. In this way, the algorithm gradually refines the property, eventually producing either an inductive strengthening of the property or a counterexample trace. Our experimental studies show that induction is a powerful tool for generalizing the unreachability of given error states: it can refine away many states at once, and it is effective at focusing the proof search on aspects of the transition system relevant to the property. Furthermore, the incremental structure of the algorithm lends itself to a parallel implementation.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Awedh, M., Somenzi, F.: Automatic invariant strengthening to prove properties in bounded model checking. In: DAC, pp. 1073–1076. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Biere, A., Claessen, K.: Hardware model checking competition. In: Hardware Verification Workshop (2010)
Bradley, A.R.: Safety Analysis of Systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University (May 2007)
Bradley, A.R.: k-step relative inductive generalization. Tech. Rep., CU Boulder (March 2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3649
Bradley, A.R., Manna, Z.: Checking safety by inductive generalization of counterexamples to induction. In: FMCAD (2007)
Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 10^20 states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98(2), 142–170 (1992)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACMÂ 50(5) (2003)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York (1977)
Eén, N.: Cut sweeping. Tech. rep., Cadence (2007)
Eén, N., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Eén, N., Mishchenko, A., Sörensson, N.: Applying logic synthesis for speeding up SAT. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 272–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. In: BMC (2003)
Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Symposia in Applied Mathematics, vol. 19, pp. 19–32. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1967)
Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, New York (1995)
McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: DAC (2001)
de Moura, L., Rueß, H., Sorea, M.: Bounded model checking and induction: From refutation to verification. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 14–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Vimjam, V.C., Hsiao, M.S.: Fast illegal state identification for improving SAT-based induction. In: DAC, pp. 241–246. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bradley, A.R. (2011). SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds) Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation. VMCAI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6538. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-18274-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-18275-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)