Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Foundational Techniques (ISoLA 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9952))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Many of the current verification approaches can be classified into automatic and interactive techniques, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one of the current open problems is to design solutions to combine the two approaches and accelerate technology transfer. We outline four existing techniques that might be able to contribute to combination solutions: (1) Conditional model checking is a technique that gives detailed information (in form of a condition) about the verified state space, i.e., informs the user (or tools later in a tool chain) of the outcome. Also, it accepts as input detailed information (again as condition) about what the conditional model checker has to do. (2) Correctness witnesses, stored in a machine-readable exchange format, contain (partial) invariants that can be used to prove the correctness of a system. For example, tools that usually expect invariants from the user can read the invariants from such correctness witnesses and ask the user only for the remaining invariants. (3) Abstraction-refinement based approaches that use a dynamically adjustable precision (such as in lazy CEGAR approaches) can be provided with invariants from the user or from other tools, e.g., from deductive methods. This way, the approach can succeed in constructing a proof even if it was not able to come up with the required invariant. (4) The technique of path invariants extracts (in a CEGAR method) a path program that represents an interesting part of the program for which an invariant is needed. Such a path program can be given to an expensive (or interactive) method for computing invariants that can then be fed back to a CEGAR method to continue verifying the large program. While the existing techniques originate from software verification, we believe that the new combination ideas are useful for verifying general systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bruns, D., Bubel, R., Gladisch, C., Grebing, S., Hähnle, R., Hentschel, M., Herda, M., Klebanov, V., Mostowski, W., Scheben, C., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M.: The KeY platform for verification and analysis of Java programs. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Kröning, D. (eds.) VSTTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8471, pp. 55–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ball, T., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: A decade of software model checking with Slam. Commun. ACM 54(7), 68–76 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The Slam project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In: POPL 2002, pp. 1–3. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beckert, B., Hähnle, R.: Reasoning and verification: State of the art and current trends. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(1), 20–29 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beyer, D.: Reliable and reproducible competition results with BenchExec and witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2016). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 887–904. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer, D., Dangl, M.: Verification-aided debugging: An interactive web-service for exploring error witnesses. In: Chaudhuri, S., Farzan, A. (eds.) CAV 2016. LNCS, vol. 9780, pp. 502–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M.: Correctness witnesses: Exchanging verification results between verifiers. In: FSE 2016. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beyer, D., Dangl, M., Dietsch, D., Heizmann, M., Stahlbauer, A.: Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers. In: FSE 2015, pp. 721–733. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beyer, D., Gulwani, S., Schmidt, D.: Combining model checking and data-flow analysis. In: Clarke, E.M., Henzinger, T.A., Veith, H. (eds.) Handbook on Model Checking. Springer (to appear, 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Checking memory safety with Blast. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 2–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The software model checker Blast. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 9(5–6), 505–525 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: A technique to pass information between verifiers. In: FSE 2012. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: PLDI 2007, pp. 300–309. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Beyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Théoduloz, G.: Program analysis with dynamic precision adjustment. In: ASE 2008, pp. 29–38. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beyer, D., Huisman, M., Klebanov, V., Monahan, R.: Evaluating software verification systems: Benchmarks and competitions (Dagstuhl reports 14171). Dagstuhl Rep. 4(4), 1–19 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Beyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: CPAchecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 184–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Beyer, D., Löwe, S., Novikov, E., Stahlbauer, A., Wendler, P.: Precision reuse for efficient regression verification. In: ESEC/FSE 2013, pp. 389–399. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Clarke, E., Kröning, D., Lerda, F.: A tool for checking ANSI-C programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 168–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Ernst, G., Pfähler, J., Schellhorn, G., Haneberg, D., Reif, W.: Kiv: Overview and VerifyThis competition. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 17(6), 677–694 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giesl, J., Mesnard, F., Rubio, A., Thiemann, R., Waldmann, J.: Termination competition. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE-25. LNCS, vol. 9195, pp. 105–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Albarghouthi, A., Gurfinkel, A., Li, Y., Chaki, S., Chechik, M.: Ufo: Verification with interpolants and abstract interpretation (Competition Contribution). In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 637–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Gurfinkel, A., Kahsai, T., Navas, J.A.: SeaHorn: A framework for verifying C programs (Competition Contribution). In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 447–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heizmann, M., Dietsch, D., Greitschus, M., Leike, J., Musa, B., Schätzle, C., Podelski, A.: Ultimate automizer with two-track proofs (Competition Contribution). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 950–953. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Rigorous examination of reactive systems. The RERS challenges 2012 and 2013. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 16(5), 457–464 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huisman, M., Klebanov, V., Monahan, R., Tautschnig, M.: VerifyThis 2015: A program verification competition. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: A powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and Java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Software model checking. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4), Article No. 21 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Karpenkov, E.G.: Lpi: Software verification with local policy iteration (Competition Contribution). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 930–933. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Khoroshilov, A., Mutilin, V., Petrenko, A., Zakharov, V.: Establishing Linux driver verification process. In: Pnueli, A., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5947, pp. 165–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Necula, G.C., McPeak, S., Weimer, W.: CCured: Type-safe retrofitting of legacy code. In: POPL 2002, pp. 128–139. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schmidt, D.A., Steffen, B.: Program analysis as model checking of abstract interpretations. In: Levi, G. (ed.) SAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1503, pp. 351–380. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Schrammel, P., Kröning, D.: 2ls for program analysis (Competition Contribution). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 905–907. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Ströder, T., Aschermann, C., Frohn, F., Hensel, J., Giesl, J.: AProVE: Termination and memory safety of C programs (Competition Contribution). In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 417–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  36. ter Beek, M., Hähnle, R., Schaefer, I.: Correctness-by-construction and post-hoc verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016 Part I. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 723–729. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tschannen, J., Furia, C.A., Nordio, M., Polikarpova, N.: AutoProof: Auto-active functional verification of object-oriented programs. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 566–580. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng, M., Edenhofner, J.G., Luo, Z., Gerrard, M.J., Rogers, M.S., Dwyer, M.B., Siegel, S.F.: CIVL: Applying a general concurrency verification framework to C/Pthreads programs (Competition Contribution). In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 908–911. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

    Dirk Beyer

Authors
  1. Dirk Beyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lero, Limerick, Ireland

    Tiziana Margaria

  2. TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Bernhard Steffen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Beyer, D. (2016). Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Foundational Techniques. ISoLA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9952. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_60

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47165-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47166-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation