2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Unifying View on SMT-Based Software Verification

Abstract: After many years of successful development of new approaches for software verification, there is a need to consolidate the knowledge about the different abstract domains and algorithms. The goal of this paper is to provide a compact and accessible presentation of four SMT-based verification approaches in order to study them in theory and in practice. We present and compare the following different “schools of thought” of software verification: bounded model checking, k-induction, predicate abstraction, and lazy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We now attempt to establish that augmenting k -induction with auxiliary invariants from KIPDR improves its overall effectiveness: In the previous experiment, we presented CPAchecker-CTIGAR, which uses an adaptation of PDR as its verification engine. When we compare the results of CPAchecker-CTIGAR from Table 2 to the results from evaluations [4,5] of other techniques for previous versions of the same benchmark set, we see that neither of the two CTIGAR implementations is competitive. For example, running the k -induction configuration of CPAchecker without auxiliary-invariant generation on our benchmark set, we obtain 1 239 correct proofs and 836 correct alarms, as shown in the fourth column of Table 2 (KI). In general, however, the strength of PDR is considered to be its capability for generating safety invariants, so that it is more interesting to analyze its usefulness as an invariant generator.…”
Section: Hypothesis 2: Augmenting K -Induction With Kipdrmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…We now attempt to establish that augmenting k -induction with auxiliary invariants from KIPDR improves its overall effectiveness: In the previous experiment, we presented CPAchecker-CTIGAR, which uses an adaptation of PDR as its verification engine. When we compare the results of CPAchecker-CTIGAR from Table 2 to the results from evaluations [4,5] of other techniques for previous versions of the same benchmark set, we see that neither of the two CTIGAR implementations is competitive. For example, running the k -induction configuration of CPAchecker without auxiliary-invariant generation on our benchmark set, we obtain 1 239 correct proofs and 836 correct alarms, as shown in the fourth column of Table 2 (KI). In general, however, the strength of PDR is considered to be its capability for generating safety invariants, so that it is more interesting to analyze its usefulness as an invariant generator.…”
Section: Hypothesis 2: Augmenting K -Induction With Kipdrmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The advantage of using a diverse set of models is that we can identify the most suitable application areas. Furthermore, we compare lower lever parameters of CEGAR as opposed to most experiments in the literature [11,19,36,37], where different algorithms or tools are compared. We formulate and address a research question related to the effectiveness and efficiency of each of our contributions.…”
Section: Experimental Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each path σ i with its first state to be refined s r i , we check if any other state in S r is a proper ancestor 10 of s r i in the ARG. 11 If such state exists, it means that the other path shares its prefix with the currently examined path, and will need refinement earlier. That refinement will add new predicates and prune the ARG earlier, possibly eliminating the current counterexample as well.…”
Section: Proposed Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations