Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Complexity and Algorithms for Monomial and Clausal Predicate Abstraction

  • Conference paper
Automated Deduction – CADE-22 (CADE 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5663))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the asymptotic complexity of various predicate abstraction problems relative to the asymptotic complexity of checking an annotated program in a given assertion logic. Unlike previous approaches, we pose the predicate abstraction problem as a decision problem, instead of the traditional inference problem. For assertion logics closed under weakest (liberal) precondition and Boolean connectives, we show two restrictions of the predicate abstraction problem where the two complexities match. The restrictions correspond to the case of monomial and clausal abstraction. For these restrictions, we show a symbolic encoding that reduces the predicate abstraction problem to checking the satisfiability of a single formula whose size is polynomial in the size of the program and the set of predicates. We also provide a new iterative algorithm for solving the clausal abstraction problem that can be seen as the dual of the Houdini algorithm for solving the monomial abstraction problem.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2001), pp. 203–213 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M.: Weakest-precondition of unstructured programs. In: Program Analysis For Software Tools and Engineering (PASTE 2005), pp. 82–87 (2005)

    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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Condit, J., Hackett, B., Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S.: Unifying type checking and property checking for low-level code. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2009), pp. 302–314 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for the static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1977), pp. 238–252 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cousot, P., Halbwachs, N.: Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1978), pp. 84–96 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flanagan, C., Leino, K.R.M.: Houdini, an annotation assistant for ESC/Java. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 500–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Gulwani, S., Srivastava, S., Venkatesan, R.: Constraint-based invariant inference over predicate abstraction. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 120–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 232–244 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2002), pp. 58–70 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jain, H., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Clarke, E.M.: Word level predicate abstraction and refinement for verifying rtl verilog. In: Design Automation Conference (DAC 2005), pp. 445–450. ACM, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurshan, R.P.: Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lahiri, S.K., Bryant, R.E.: Constructing quantified invariants via predicate abstraction. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 267–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S.: Back to the future: Revisiting precise program verification using SMT solvers. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2008), pp. 171–182 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S., Galeotti, J.P., Voung, J.W., Wies, T.: Intra-module inference. In: Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2009) (July 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sagiv, S., Reps, T.W., Wilhelm, R.: Solving shape-analysis problems in languages with destructive updating. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 20(1), 1–50 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H.B., Manna, Z.: Constraint-based linear-relations analysis. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H.B., Manna, Z.: Scalable analysis of linear systems using mathematical programming. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 25–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB), http://goedel.cs.uiowa.edu/smtlib/

  21. Solar-Lezama, A., Rabbah, R.M., Bodík, R., Ebcioglu, K.: Programming by sketching for bit-streaming programs. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2005), pp. 281–294. ACM, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research, USA

    Shuvendu K. Lahiri & Shaz Qadeer

Authors
  1. Shuvendu K. Lahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaz Qadeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Renate A. Schmidt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lahiri, S.K., Qadeer, S. (2009). Complexity and Algorithms for Monomial and Clausal Predicate Abstraction. In: Schmidt, R.A. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE-22. CADE 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5663. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02959-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02959-2_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02958-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02959-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics