Bounded Model Checking of Software Using SMT Solvers Instead of SAT Solvers

Armando, Alessandro; Mantovani, Jacopo; Platania, Lorenzo

doi:10.1007/11691617_9

Cited by 78 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the comparative tables, "UNABLE" means that the corresponding tool is unable to validate the program because a lack of expressiveness, "TIME_OUT" because of time or memory limitations, "NOT_FOUND" that it does not detect an error, and "FALSE_ERROR" that it reports an error in a correct program. All experiments were performed on the same computer, an Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86 GHz with 1.5G of memory, using the version of the verifiers that was downloadable in June 2008 from their web sites (except for EUREKA for which the execution times given in [3,4] are reported.) More details on these experiments can be found in [18].…”

Section: Benchmark Programs and Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CPBPV: a constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThis paper studies how to verify the conformity of a program with its specification and proposes a novel constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification (CPBPV). The CPBPV framework uses constraint stores to represent both the specification and the program and explores execution paths of bounded length nondeterministically. The CPBPV framework detects nonconformities and provides counter examples when a path of bounded length that refutes some properties exists. The input program is partially correct under the boundness restrictions, if each constraint store so produced implies the postcondition. CPBPV does not explore spurious execution paths, as it incrementally prunes execution paths early by detecting that the constraint store is not consistent. CPBPV uses the rich language of constraint programming to express the constraint store. Finally, CPBPV is parameterized with a list of solvers which are tried in sequence, starting with the least expensive and less general. Experimental results often produce orders of magnitude improvements over earlier approaches, running times being often independent of the size of the variable domains.Moreover, CPBPV was able to detect subtle errors in some programs for which other frameworks based on bounded model checking have failed

show abstract

Section: Benchmark Programs and Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBMC was successfully used to compare an ANSI C program with a circuit given as design in Verilog [12]. Armando et al [4] proposed to use SMT 15 solvers instead of SAT solvers for bounded model checking of C programs. They showed that their approach may lead to considerably more compact formulae than those obtained with CBMC.…”

Section: Model Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

CPBPV: a constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are extending the input language with more expressiveness power so as to broaden the application domain, i.e., arrays, global variables, etc. Since our toolkit is designed to be extensible, we plan to support more specification languages like CCS, p-calculus, timed automata (which requires SMT capability as in demonstrated in [22]) or integrated formalisms like circus or TCOZ.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositional encoding for bounded model checking

Sun

Liu

Dong

et al. 2008

Front. Comput. Sci. China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verification techniques like SAT-based bounded model checking have been successfully applied to a variety of system models. Applying bounded model checking to compositional process algebras is, however, a highly non-trivial task. One challenge is that the number of system states for process algebra models is not statically known, whereas exploring the full state space is computationally expensive. This paper presents a compositional encoding of hierarchical processes as SAT problems and then applies state-of-the-art SAT solvers for bounded model checking. The encoding avoids exploring the full state space for complex systems so as to deal with state space explosion. We developed an automated analyzer which combines complementing model checking techniques (i.e., bounded model checking and explicit onthe-fly model checking) to validate system models against event-based temporal properties. The experiment results show the analyzer handles large systems.

show abstract

“…For example, the CUDD backend uses the BDD package CUDD. 4 Additionally, metaSMT currently provides two adapters, SAT_Clause and SAT_Aiger. Both adapters map Boolean primitives to clauses, write the clauses in the DIMACS CNF format to a file, and pass the file to a SAT solver.…”

Section: Sat Aig and Bdd Backendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large number of different decision procedures for SMT, called SMT solvers, have been proposed and empirical evidence, e.g., in [4,11,19], has been given that SMT solving increases efficiency in formal reasoning. Improving the performance of SMT solvers, remains an active research challenge driven by the annual SMT competitions [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

metaSMT: focus on your application and not on solver integration

Riener

Haedicke

Frehse

et al. 2016

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many applications from artificial intelligence and formal methods use decision procedures as their core solving engines. In this context, automated reasoning based on Satisfiability (SAT) or Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) is very effective. For a given application, however, selecting the best reasoning engine is a daunting task requiring first-hand experience and insight into engine-specific implementation details. Developers have to decide which concrete engine to use and how to integrate the engine into an application. Although file formats, e.g., DIMACS CNF or SMT-LIB, standardize the input of SAT and SMT solvers, not all engines provide input interfaces compliant with these standards. When following the standard, advanced (and not standardized) features of the solvers remain unused and their integration is left to the users. This work presents meta-SMT, a framework that eases the integration of existing reasoning engines into applications. Inspired by SMT-LIB, metaSMT provides a domain-specific language that allows for engine-independent programming and offers a generic interface to advanced features as an extra abstraction layer. State-of-the-art solvers for satisfiability and other theories are available via metaSMT with little programming effort. Language bindings for C++ and Python are provided. We show how metaSMT can be used as a portfolio consistency checker for SMT-LIB2 instances. The benchmark set of the category quantifier-free bit-vector theory from SMT-LIB (1.6 GB) is used for these experiments.

show abstract

Bounded Model Checking of Software Using SMT Solvers Instead of SAT Solvers

Cited by 78 publications

References 26 publications

CPBPV: a constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification

CPBPV: a constraint-programming framework for bounded program verification

Compositional encoding for bounded model checking

metaSMT: focus on your application and not on solver integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About