Leveraging Interpolant Strength in Model Checking

  • Simone Fulvio Rollini
  • Ondrej Sery
  • Natasha Sharygina
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7358)


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.


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.


  1. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heizmann, M., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Nested Interpolants. In: POPL 2010, pp. 471–482. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Interpolant-Based Transition Relation Approximation. Logical Methods in Computer Science 3(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pudlák, P.: Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62(3), 981–998 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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. 18.
    Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O.: Interpolation-sequence Based Model Checking. In: FMCAD 2009, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Fulvio Rollini
    • 1
  • Ondrej Sery
    • 1
    • 2
  • Natasha Sharygina
    • 1
  1. 1.Formal Verification LabUniversity of LuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Dept. of Distributed and Dependable Systems, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles University in PragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations