CPAchecker with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic

Dangl, Matthias; Löwe, Stefan; Wendler, Philipp

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34

Cited by 40 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We call such a verifier witness validator. A widely-used instance of error-witness validation is counterexample checking (e.g., [30]), for example during the refinement phase in CEGAR [21], where an abstract counterexample (which is an error witness) is checked for feasibility (the witness testifies against the program's claim to correctness). The given error witness is either rejected, which means that it describes no feasible counterexample, or it is accepted because it contains a concrete error path and CEGAR stops.…”

Section: Testificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers

Beyer

Dangl

Dietsch

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly understood that a verification tool should provide a counterexample to witness a specification violation. Until recently, software verifiers dumped error witnesses in proprietary formats, which are often neither human-nor machine-readable, and an exchange of witnesses between different verifiers was impossible. To close this gap in softwareverification technology, we have defined an exchange format for error witnesses that is easy to write and read by verification tools (for further processing, e.g., witness validation) and that is easy to convert into visualizations that conveniently let developers inspect an error path. To eliminate manual inspection of false alarms, we develop the notion of stepwise testification: in a first step, a verifier finds a problematic program path and, in addition to the verification result false, constructs a witness for this path; in the next step, another verifier re-verifies that the witness indeed violates the specification. This process can have more than two steps, each reducing the state space around the error path, making it easier to validate the witness in a later step. An obvious application for testification is the setting where we have two verifiers: one that is efficient but imprecise and another one that is precise but expensive. We have implemented the technique of error-witness-driven program analysis in two state-of-the-art verification tools, CPAchecker and Ultimate Automizer, and show by experimental evaluation that the approach is applicable to a large set of verification tasks.

show abstract

Section: Testificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Witness validation can be used to automatically eliminate false alarms in program analysis (e.g., as used in [30]). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers

Beyer

Dangl

Dietsch

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We compare 13 verifiers that participated successfully in the category Reachsafety-Recursive of SV-COMP. This includes the predicate-based verifiers CPAchecker [35,56], PeSCo [34,49] and Ultimate Automizer [37,39], the bounded model checkers Cbmc [29,42] and Esbmc [36,45], the symbolic-execution tool Symbiotic [24,25], as well as the SMTbased tool Map2Check [51,52]. The binary archives of all verifiers are publicly available.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domain-independent interprocedural program analysis using block-abstraction memoization

Beyer

Friedberger

2020

Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Softw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On reaching the UNKNOWN configuration, we exit the verification sequence. Instead of leaving the overall process, specialized techniques will be applied in the following situations: For recursive programs we facilitate Block Abstraction Memoization (BAM) [8,13] and Binary Decision Diagrams (BDD) [2] are used for concurrent programs. Witnesses are written as generated by the verifiers.…”

Section: Software Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

PeSCo: Predicting Sequential Combinations of Verifiers

Richter

Wehrheim

2019

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PeSCo is a tool for predicting a (likely best) sequential combination of verifiers on a given verification task and then running it. The approach is based on machine learning, more precisely on learning rankings of verifiers on verification tasks (where the ordering of verifiers is based on the SV-COMP scoring schema). The learning part employs Support Vector Machines; as base verifiers we use CPAchecker in 6 different configurations. 1 sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2018/results/results-verified/. C. Richter-Jury member.

show abstract

CPAchecker with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic

Cited by 40 publications

References 3 publications

Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers

Witness validation and stepwise testification across software verifiers

Domain-independent interprocedural program analysis using block-abstraction memoization

PeSCo: Predicting Sequential Combinations of Verifiers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About