Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver

Sheeran, Mary; Singh, Satnam; Stålmarck, Gunnar

doi:10.1007/3-540-40922-x_8

Cited by 477 publications

(445 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

443

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Later, it was improved and made complete for safety [6,7] and liveness [17] properties. In the complete inductive method, if the induction proves the property or the completeness criterion is met, the algorithm reports that the property is satisfied.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideally, one would like to apply the techniques in [6][7][8][9] to develop similar on-the-fly completeness criteria for branching-time temporal logics. However, the techniques used in [6][7][8][9] are based essentially on closely examining paths of interest. It is unclear whether the approach would work for branchingtime temporal logics.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But redundant computation incurred by approximations may impede the performance. Promising alternatives are available for checking linear properties, where the completeness of bounded model checking can also be determined dynamically [6][7][8][9]. However, the dynamic completeness criteria for branching-time properties are still missing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar to [6][7][8][9], our algorithm determines the completeness of bounded model checking on the fly to avoid redundant computation. We use the universal fragment of propositional µ-calculus as the formalism for property specification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the criterion is proof-theoretic, it is valid for all properties in the specification logic. Our technique gives a proof-theoretic interpretation of the completeness criteria and is more general than those in [6,7,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Wang

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we present a complete bounded model checking algorithm for the universal fragment of µ-calculus. The new algorithm checks the completeness of bounded proof of each property on the fly and does not depend on prior knowledge of the completeness thresholds. The key is to combine both local and bounded model checking techniques and use SAT solvers to perform local model checking on finite Kripke structures. Our proof-theoretic approach works for any property in the specification logic and is more general than previous work on specific properties. We report experimental results to compare our algorithm with the conventional BDD-based algorithm.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Wang

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Model Checking

Peled

Spoletini

2009

Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model checking is an automatic technique for verifying models of software or hardware systems against their specification. This analysis is based on an exploration of the checked system's state space, hence, it is in general affected by the state explosion problem. In this article, we present the classic model checking approaches and different techniques to deal with the complexity problem. We also describe some popular model checking systems.

show abstract

Correct‐by‐construction specification to verified code

Dieumegard

Jenn

et al. 2018

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Event‐B is a formal notation and method for the systems development. The key feature of this method is to produce correct‐by‐construction system designs. Once the correct design is established, the remaining work is to generate or implement correct code from the design. Two main problems remain in the process from the correct‐by‐construction design to the correct software. First, the Event‐B design is “quasi‐correct” due to some technical limitations. For instance, it is still difficult to prove the liveness properties by the Rodin platform; it is not possible to construct the Event‐B design with floating‐point arithmetic, and sometimes, the Event‐B model is incomplete and must rely on the third‐party libraries. Therefore, a method is needed to complement these modeling and proof gaps. Secondly, proving the correctness of an automatic code generator is very difficult; therefore, a method is needed to guarantee the correctness of the produced code without proving the code generator. In this article, we address the above 2 problems by introducing an intermediate formal language called High‐Level Language (HLL) between the Event‐B models and the C code. The Event‐B model is translated to HLL with an additional schedule configuration, where Event‐B invariants and system invariants (here, deadlock‐freeness and liveness properties) are proved using a SAT‐based model checker called S3. This proof guarantees the correctness of the HLL model with respect to the Event‐B model. The C code is then automatically generated from the HLL model for most functions and is manually implemented for the third‐party ones according to the function contracts defined in Event‐B. The correctness of the generated C code is guaranteed using the equivalence proof, and the correctness of the implemented C code is guaranteed using the conformance proof. Through the article, we use a traffic light controller to illustrate the proposed method; then, we apply the method to an automatic protection function of a 3‐wheeled robot to evaluate its feasibility.

show abstract

Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver

Cited by 477 publications

References 3 publications

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Model Checking

Correct‐by‐construction specification to verified code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About