Abstract
Counter-example driven refinement using predicate abstraction has been successfully used to find bugs and verify properties in programs [1]. We describe two recent advances in counter-example driven refinement:
- We present a counter-example driven refinement technique that combines verification and testing [4]. In our approach, we simultaneously use testing and proving, with the goal of either finding a test that demonstrates that P violates ϕ, or a proof that demonstrates that all executions of P satisfy ϕ. The most interesting aspect of the approach is that unsuccessful proof attempts are used to generate tests, and unsuccessful attempts to generate tests are used to refine proofs. Besides being theoretically elegant, the approach has practical advantages –precise alias information obtained during tests can be used to greatly aid the efficiency of constructing proofs [5].
- In the past, counter-example driven refinement schemes have worked with a particular form of abstraction called predicate abstraction [1]. We present approaches to refine any abstract interpretation automatically using counterexamples. Several challenges arise: refining using disjunctions leads to powerset domains, and the use of joins forces us to consider counterexample DAGs instead of counterexample traces. We present our solutions to these problems [3,2]. We also present experiences implementing our techniques in a tool Dagger.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 103–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Gulavani, B.S., Chakroborty, S., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically refining abstract interpretations. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 443–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Gulavani, B.S., Rajamani, S.K.: Counterexample driven refinement for abstract interpretation. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 474–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Gulavani, B.S., Henzinger, T.A., Kannan, Y., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K.: SYNERGY: A new algorithm for property checking. In: FSE 2006: Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 117–127. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Beckman, N.E., Nori, A.V., Rajamani, S.K., Simmons, R.J.: Proofs from tests. In: ISSTA 2008: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 3–14. ACM Press, New York (2008)
Gopinathan, M., Rajamani, S.K.: Enforcing Object Protocols by Combining Static and Dynamic Analysis. In: OOPSLA 2008: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications. ACM Press, New York (to appear, 2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rajamani, S.K. (2008). Tests, Proofs and Refinements. In: Cha, S.(., Choi, JY., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5311. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88387-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88387-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88386-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88387-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)