SATABS: SAT-Based Predicate Abstraction for ANSI-C

Clarke, Edmund M.; Kroening, Daniel; Sharygina, Natasha; Yorav, Karen

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_40

Cited by 206 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, we compared our tool against the results of the extensive study reported in [7] for the state-of-the-art OD tools CpaChecker [7], Blast [6], and SatAbs [12]. Both uUfo and cpUfo configurations are able to solve all buggy transmitter examples.…”

Section: Implementation and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Under-Approximations to Over-Approximations and Back

Albarghouthi

Gurfinkel

Chećhik

2012

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Current approaches to software model checking can be divided into over-approximation-driven (OD) and under-approximationdriven (UD). OD approaches maintain an abstraction of the transition relation of a program and use abstract reachability to build an inductive invariant (or find a counterexample). At the other extreme, UD approaches attempt to construct inductive invariants by generalizing from finite paths through the control-flow graph of the program.In this paper, we present Ufo, an algorithm that unifies OD and UD approaches in order to leverage both of their advantages. Ufo is parameterized by the degree to which over-and under-approximations drive the analysis. At one extreme, Ufo is a novel interpolation-based (UD) algorithm that generates interpolants to label (refine) multiple program paths using a single SMT solver query. At the other extreme, Ufo uses an abstract domain to drive the analysis, while using interpolants to strengthen the abstraction.We have implemented Ufo in LLVM and applied it to programs from the Competition on Software Verification. Our experimental results demonstrate the utility of our algorithm and the benefits of combining UD and OD approaches.

show abstract

Section: Implementation and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Under-Approximations to Over-Approximations and Back

Albarghouthi

Gurfinkel

Chećhik

2012

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lazy means that the tool starts from a coarsely abstracted model and then refines it while eager is its dual, starting with the concrete model and then removing irrelevant facts. CEGAR-based tools [1,4,7,10,21] are the best examples of lazy approaches while SE-based tools [12,18] are for eager methods. Special mention is required for hybrid approaches such as YOGI [20], CPA-CHECKER [3], and KRATOS [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TRACER: A Symbolic Execution Tool for Verification

Jaffar

Murali

Navas

et al. 2012

Computer Aided Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our tool builds on SATABS [3], a generic software verification tool for ANSI C; SATABS takes specifications written as user-specified assertions of boolean conditions inserted in the code. The verification is sound (and complete for finite-state applications): The program's state space is exhaustively explored for violations of the specification, including e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%