Abstract
Recently it has become possible to verify full functional correctness of certain kinds of software using automated theorem-proving technology. Empirical studies of the difficulty of automatically proving diverse verification conditions (VCs) would be helpful. For example, they could help direct those developing formal specifications toward techniques that tend to simplify VCs. They could also help focus the efforts of those improving automated theorem-proving tools that are targeted to handle VCs. This study explores two specific empirical questions of this sort: How does an SMT solver perform on VCs that involve user-defined mathematical functions and predicates? When it does not perform well, what can be done to improve the prospects for automated proof? Experience using Z3 to prove VCs for a solution to a fully generic sorting benchmark, along with thousands of other VCs generated for both clients and implementations of dozens of RESOLVE software components, suggests that providing the prover with universal algebraic lemmas about user-defined mathematical functions and predicates results in better outcomes than expanding (unfolding) definitions. The importance of such lemmas might not be surprising to those who have tried to carry out such proofs manually or with the help of an interactive prover, but the damage sometimes caused by expanding definitions might be unexpected. A large empirical study of these phenomena in the context of automated software verification has not been previously reported.
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
Sitaraman, M., Weide, B.: Component-based software using RESOLVE. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 19, 21–63 (1994)
Kirschenbaum, J., Adcock, B., Bronish, D., Smith, H., Harton, H., Sitaraman, M., Weide, B.W.: Verifying Component-Based Software: Deep Mathematics or Simple Bookkeeping? In: Edwards, S.H., Kulczycki, G. (eds.) ICSR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5791, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Sitaraman, M., et al.: Building a push-button RESOLVE verifier: Progress and challenges. Formal Aspects of Computing 23, 607–626 (2011)
Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: An Automatic Program Verifier for Functional Correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Weide, B.W., Sitaraman, M., Harton, H.K., Adcock, B., Bucci, P., Bronish, D., Heym, W.D., Kirschenbaum, J., Frazier, D.: Incremental Benchmarks for Software Verification Tools and Techniques. In: Shankar, N., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5295, pp. 84–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Hoare, T.: The verifying compiler: A grand challenge for computing research. J. ACM 50, 63–69 (2003)
Heym, W.D.: Computer program verification: improvements for human reasoning. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA (1995)
Sitaraman, M., Atkinson, S., Kulczycki, G., Weide, B.W., Long, T.J., Bucci, P., Heym, W.D., Pike, S.M., Hollingsworth, J.E.: Reasoning about Software-Component Behavior. In: Frakes, W.B. (ed.) ICSR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1844, pp. 266–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Leino, K.R.M.: Specification and verification of object-oriented software. Marktoberdorf International Summer School 2008, lecture notes (2008)
Leino, K.R.M.: This is Boogie 2. Manuscript KRML 178 (2008), http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/leino/papers.html
Leino, K.R.M., Monahan, R.: Dafny Meets the Verification Benchmarks Challenge. In: Leavens, G.T., O’Hearn, P., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) VSTTE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6217, pp. 112–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Nelson, C.G.: Techniques for program verification. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA (1980)
Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S. (eds.) Computer-Aided Reasoning: ACL2 Case Studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)
Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., Saxe, J.B.: Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking. J. ACM 52, 365–473 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tagore, A., Zaccai, D., Weide, B.W. (2012). Automatically Proving Thousands of Verification Conditions Using an SMT Solver: An Empirical Study. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds) NASA Formal Methods. NFM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7226. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28891-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28891-3_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28890-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28891-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)