OptCE: A Counterexample-Guided Inductive Optimization Solver

Albuquerque, Higo F.; Araujo, Rodrigo F.; Bessa, Iury; Cordeiro, Lucas C.; Filho, Eddie B. de Lima

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_9

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [4], we explain the difference in performance using both approaches (using API and file interfaces). Additionally, the SMT backend of CBMC is unable to support full ANSI-C, as recently reported in [14]. 1 https://github.com/diffblue/cbmc/issues/1944 VII.…”

Section: ) Setupmentioning

confidence: 81%

ESBMC 5.0: an industrial-strength C model checker

Gadelha

Monteiro

Morse

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ESBMC is a mature, permissively licensed opensource context-bounded model checker for the verification of single-and multi-threaded C programs. It can verify both safety (e.g., bounds check, pointer safety, overflow) and userdefined (as asserts in the program) properties automatically. ESBMC provides C++ and Python APIs to access internal data structures, allowing inspection and extension at any stage of the verification process. We discuss improvements over previous versions of ESBMC, including the description of new front-and back-ends, IEEE floating-point support, and an improved k-induction algorithm. A demonstration is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_qmN-cazvM.

show abstract

Section: ) Setupmentioning

confidence: 81%

ESBMC 5.0: an industrial-strength C model checker

Gadelha

Monteiro

Morse

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [16], we explain the difference in performance, when using both approaches (i.e., API and file interfaces). Additionally, the SMT back-end of CBMC is unable to support full ANSI-C, as recently reported in our previous work [27]. Lastly, different model checkers provide different verification strategies, counterexample format, and verification results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Verifying fragility in digital systems with uncertainties using DSVerifier v2.0

Chaves

Ismail

Bessa

et al. 2019

Journal of Systems and Software

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Control-system robustness verification with respect to implementation aspects lacks automated verification approaches for checking stability and performance of uncertain control systems, when considering finite word-length (FWL) effects. Here we describe and evaluate novel verification procedures for digital systems with uncertainties, based on software model checking and satisfiability modulo theories, named as DSVerifier v2.0, which is able to check robust stability of closed-loop control systems with respect to FWL effects. In particular, we describe our verification algorithms to check for limit-cycle oscillations (LCOs), output quantization error, and robust non-fragile stability on common closedloop associations of digital control systems (i.e., series and feedback). DSVerifier v2.0 model checks new properties of closed-loop systems (e.g., LCO), including stability and output quantization error for uncertain plant models, and considers unknown parameters and FWL effects. Experimental results over a large set of benchmarks show that 35%, 34%, and 41% of success can be reached for stability, LCO, and output quantization error verification procedures, respectively, for a set of 396 closed-loop control system implementations and realizations.

show abstract

“…The following fact derives from the above definitions and the properties of two's complement representation adopted by the SMT-LIBv2 standard for signed BV. 6 Theorem 1 An optimal solution of an OMT [BV] problem ϕ, obj is any model M of ϕ which lexicographically maximizes the vector of attractor equalities A.…”

Section: Starting From the Msb To The Lsb τ N [Respm] In Definition 3 Assigns To Each Obj[k] The Value Attr[k] Unless It Is Inconsistent mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optimization modulo theories (OMT) [6][7][8][9][20][21][22][23][28][29][30][31][32]35,36,[38][39][40][41][42][43] is an important extension to satisfiability modulo theories which allows for finding models that optimize one or more objectives, which typically consist in some linear-arithmetic or Pseudo-Boolean function application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization Modulo the Theories of Signed Bit-Vectors and Floating-Point Numbers

Trentin

Sebastiani

2021

J Autom Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimization modulo theories (OMT) is an important extension of SMT which allows for finding models that optimize given objective functions, typically consisting in linear-arithmetic or Pseudo-Boolean terms. However, many SMT and OMT applications, in particular from SW and HW verification, require handling bit-precise representations of numbers, which in SMT are handled by means of the theory of bit-vectors ($${{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {V}}}$$ B V ) for the integers and that of floating-point numbers ($$\mathcal {FP}$$ FP ) for the reals respectively. Whereas an approach for OMT with (unsigned) $${{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {V}}}$$ B V objectives has been proposed by Nadel & Ryvchin, unfortunately we are not aware of any existing approach for OMT with $$\mathcal {FP}$$ FP objectives. In this paper we fill this gap, and we address for the first time $$\text {OMT}$$ OMT with $$\mathcal {FP}$$ FP objectives. We present a novel OMT approach, based on the novel concept of attractor and dynamic attractor, which extends the work of Nadel and Ryvchin to work with signed-$${{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {V}}}$$ B V objectives and, most importantly, with $$\mathcal {FP}$$ FP objectives. We have implemented some novel $$\text {OMT}$$ OMT procedures on top of OptiMathSAT and tested them on modified problems from the SMT-LIB repository. The empirical results support the validity and feasibility of our novel approach.

show abstract

OptCE: A Counterexample-Guided Inductive Optimization Solver

Cited by 5 publications

References 30 publications

ESBMC 5.0: an industrial-strength C model checker

ESBMC 5.0: an industrial-strength C model checker

Verifying fragility in digital systems with uncertainties using DSVerifier v2.0

Optimization Modulo the Theories of Signed Bit-Vectors and Floating-Point Numbers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About