Freddy Y.C. Mang
ABSTRACT
We present a new abstraction refinement algorithm to better refine the abstract model for formal property verification. In previous work, refinements are selected either based on a set of counter examples of the current abstract model, as in [5][6][7][8][9][19][20], or independent of any counter examples, as in [17]. We (1) introduce a new "controllability" analysis that is independent of any particular counter examples, (2) apply a new "cooperativeness" analysis that extracts information from a particular set of counter examples and (3) combine both to better refine the abstract model. We implemented the algorithm and applied it to verify several real-world designs and properties. We compared the algorithm against the abstraction refinement algorithms in [19] and [20] and the interpolation-based reachability analysis in [14]. The experimental results indicate that the new algorithm outperforms the other three algorithms in terms of runtime, abstraction efficiency (as defined in [19]) and the number of proven properties.
- R. Alur, L. de Alfaro, T.A. Henzinger, and F.Y.C. Mang. Automating Modular Verification. In Proceedings of CONCUR, pp. 82--97, 1999.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. de Alfaro, T.A. Henzinger, and F.Y.C. Mang. Detecting Errors Before Reaching Them. In Proceedings of CAV, pp. 186--201, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E.M. Clarke and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of TACAS, pp.193--207, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bjesse and R. Damiano. An implementation of McMillan's interpolation algorithm, private communication and unpublished manuscript, 2003.]]Google Scholar
- P. Chauhan, E.M. Clarke, J. Kukula, S. Sapra, H. Veith and D. Wang. Automated abstraction refinement for model checking large state space using SAT based conflict analysis. In Proceedings of FMCAD, pp.33--51, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Proceedings of CAV, pp.154--169, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- E.M. Clarke, A. Gupta, J. Kukula and O. Strichman. SAT based abstraction refinement using ILP and machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of CAV, pp.265--279, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Glusman, G. Kamhi, S. Mador-Haim, R. Fraer and M.Y. Vardi. Multiple-counterexample guided iterative abstraction refinement: an industrial evaluation. In Proceedings of TACAS, pp.176--191, 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Gupta, M. Ganai, Z. Yang and P. Ashar. Iterative abstraction using SAT-based BMC with proof analysis, In Proceedings of ICCAD, pp.416--423, 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R.H. Hardin, Z. Har'El, and R.P. Kurshan. COSPAN. In Proceedings of CAV, pp.423--427, 1996.]]Google Scholar
- P.-H. Ho, T. Shiple, K. Harer, J. Kukula, R. Damiano, V. Bertacco, J. Taylor and J. Long. Smart Simulation Using Collaborative Formal and Simulation Engines. In Proceedings of ICCAD, pp.120--126, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Model checking for safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design, 19(3), pp.291--314, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R.P. Kurshan. Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K.L. McMillan. Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In Proceedings of CAV, pp.1--13, 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- K.L. McMillan. Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In Proceedings of CAV, pp.250--264, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K.L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking: An Approach to the State Explosion Problem. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K.L. McMillan and Nina Amla. Automatic abstraction without counter examples. In Proceedings of TACAS, pp.2--17, 2003.]]Google Scholar
- F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU Decision Diagram Package. ftp://vlsi.colorado.edu/pub/.]]Google Scholar
- C. Wang, B. Li, H. Jin, G.D. Hachtel, F. Somenzi. Improving Ariadne's bundle by following multiple threads in abstraction refinement. In Proceedings of ICCAD, pp.408--415, 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Wang, P.-H. Ho, J. Long, J. Kukula, Y. Zhu, H.-K. T. Ma and R. Damiano. Formal property verification by abstraction refinement with formal, simulation and hybrid engines. In Proceedings of DAC, pp.35--40, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Abstraction refinement by controllability and cooperativeness analysis
Recommendations
Compositional Abstraction Refinement for Timed Systems
TASE '10: Proceedings of the 2010 4th IEEE International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software EngineeringModel checking suffers from the state explosion problem. Compositional abstraction and abstraction refinement have been investigated in many areas to address this problem. This paper considers the compositional model checking for timed systems. We ...
SAT-based Abstraction Refinement for Real-time Systems
In this paper, we present an abstraction refinement approach for model checking safety properties of real-time systems using SAT-solving. We present a faithful embedding of bounded model checking for systems of timed automata into propositional logic ...
Compositional reachability analysis for efficient modular verification of asynchronous designs
Compositional verification is essential to address state explosion in model checking. Traditionally, an over-approximate context is needed for each individual component in a system for sound verification. This may cause state explosion for the ...
Comments