2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_45
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PeRIPLO: A Framework for Producing Effective Interpolants in SAT-Based Software Verification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interpolation for QF UF is implemented with duality-based interpolation [2], and a similar extension is applied to the interpolation algorithm for QF LRA based on [11]. HiFrog also provides a range of techniques to reduce the size of the generated interpolants through removing redundancies in propositional proofs [13]: (i) the RecyclePivotsWithIntersection (RPI) algorithm, (ii) the LowerUnits (LU) algorithm, (iii) structural hashing (SH), (iv) and a set of local rewriting rules.…”
Section: Tool Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interpolation for QF UF is implemented with duality-based interpolation [2], and a similar extension is applied to the interpolation algorithm for QF LRA based on [11]. HiFrog also provides a range of techniques to reduce the size of the generated interpolants through removing redundancies in propositional proofs [13]: (i) the RecyclePivotsWithIntersection (RPI) algorithm, (ii) the LowerUnits (LU) algorithm, (iii) structural hashing (SH), (iv) and a set of local rewriting rules.…”
Section: Tool Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We present an implementation of the incremental verification of software with assertions that uses the insights obtained from a successful verification of earlier assertions. As a fundamental building block in storing the insights we use function summaries known to provide speedup through localizing and modularizing verification [9,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the best of our knowledge, there are few conclusive experiments relating interpolant strength with model checking performance. In [47], slight performance improvements are reported when using weak interpolants in the context of bounded model checking with function summaries; however, the results are dominated by improvements achieved when optimising the size of interpolants, preferring smaller over bigger interpolants. In addition, the extraction of different interpolants from the same proof is less flexible than imposing conditions already on the level of proof construction; if a proof does not leverage the right arguments why a program path is infeasible, it is unlikely that good interpolants can be extracted using any method.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Minimisation of proofs and interpolants through proof transformation [46,31,47] can have a positive impact on model checking performance; however, this is mainly due to the reduced overhead when processing smaller formulae, less due to a reduction in the number of refinement steps needed. The same comments as in the previous paragraph apply.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We define the notion of logical strength for LPAISs and show how introducing a partial order over LPAISs allows to systematically compare the strength of the computed interpolants (a feature intuitively relevant to verification since it affects the coarseness of the over-approximations realized by interpolants [12]). We also show how LPAISs can be used to generate collections of interpolants which enjoy the path interpolation (inductive step) property.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%