Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us
Search
Cart
Book cover

International Conference on Computer Aided Verification

CAV 2012: Computer Aided Verification pp 193–209Cite as

  1. Home
  2. Computer Aided Verification
  3. Conference paper
Leveraging Interpolant Strength in Model Checking

Leveraging Interpolant Strength in Model Checking

  • Simone Fulvio Rollini18,
  • Ondrej Sery18,19 &
  • Natasha Sharygina18 
  • Conference paper
  • 3625 Accesses

  • 22 Citations

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNTCS,volume 7358)

Abstract

Craig interpolation is a well known method of abstraction successfully used in both hardware and software model checking. The logical strength of interpolants can affect the quality of approximations and consequently the performance of the model checkers. Recently, it was observed that for the same resolution proof a complete lattice of interpolants ordered by strength can be derived. Most state-of-the-art model checking techniques based on interpolation subject the interpolants to constraints that ensure efficient verification as, for example, in transition relation approximation for bounded model checking, counterexample-guided abstraction refinement and function summarization for software update checking. However, in general, these verification-specific constraints are not satisfied by all possible interpolants.

The paper analyzes the restrictions within the lattice of interpolants under which the required constraints are satisfied. This enables investigation of the effect of the strength of interpolants on the particular techniques, while preserving their soundness. As an additional benefit, combination of this result with proof manipulation procedures allows the use of optimized solvers to generate interpolants of different strengths for various model checking techniques.

Keywords

  • Model Check
  • Complete Lattice
  • Conjunctive Normal Form
  • Bound Model Check
  • Model Check Algorithm

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This work is partially supported by the European Community under the call FP7-ICT-2009-5 — project PINCETTE 257647. The work of the second author was partially supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic project P202/12/P180.

Download conference paper PDF

References

  1. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The Software Model Checker Blast: Applications to Software Engineering. Int. J. STTT 9, 505–525 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruttomesso, R., Rollini, S.F., Sharygina, N., Tsitovich, A.: Flexible Interpolation with Local Proof Transformations. In: ICCAD 2010, pp. 770–777. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Craig, W.: Three Uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem in Relating Model Theory and Proof Theory. J. of Symbolic Logic, 269–285 (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  5. D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Purandare, M., Weissenbacher, G.: Interpolant Strength. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Heizmann, M., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Nested Interpolants. In: POPL 2010, pp. 471–482. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from Proofs. In: POPL 2004, pp. 232–244. ACM (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Interpolant-Based Transition Relation Approximation. Logical Methods in Computer Science 3(4) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: Interpolation-Based Software Verification with Wolverine. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 573–578. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. McMillan, K.L.: An Interpolating Theorem Prover. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. McMillan, K.L.: Applications of Craig Interpolants in Model Checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. McMillan, K.L.: Lazy Abstraction with Interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. McMillan, K.L.: Lazy Annotation for Program Testing and Verification. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 104–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Pudlák, P.: Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62(3), 981–998 (1997)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Rollini, S.F., Bruttomesso, R., Sharygina, N.: An Efficient and Flexible Approach to Resolution Proof Reduction. In: Barner, S., Kroening, D., Raz, O. (eds.) HVC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6504, pp. 182–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sery, O., Fedyukovich, G., Sharygina, N.: Interpolation-based Function Summaries in Bounded Model Checking. In: HVC 2011. LNCS (2011) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O.: Interpolation-sequence Based Model Checking. In: FMCAD 2009, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Formal Verification Lab, University of Lugano, Switzerland

    Simone Fulvio Rollini, Ondrej Sery & Natasha Sharygina

  2. Dept. of Distributed and Dependable Systems, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic

    Ondrej Sery

Authors
  1. Simone Fulvio Rollini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ondrej Sery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natasha Sharygina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3226 Siebel Center, 201 N. Goodwin Avenue, 61801-2302, Urbana, IL, USA

    P. Madhusudan

  2. Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, 253 Cory Hall # 1770, 94720-1770, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Sanjit A. Seshia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rollini, S.F., Sery, O., Sharygina, N. (2012). Leveraging Interpolant Strength in Model Checking. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds) Computer Aided Verification. CAV 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7358. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_18

Download citation

  • .RIS
  • .ENW
  • .BIB
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31423-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31424-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

167.114.118.210

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature