Disproving Inductive Entailments in Separation Logic via Base Pair Approximation

Brotherston, J G.; Gorogiannis, Nikos

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24312-2_20

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…to the approach based on overapproximation in [12]. We are uncertain as to the scalability of such an approach, but nevertheless consider it an interesting avenue for potential future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the theoretical side, the satisfiability problem for our logic was recently shown decidable [10] and its entailment problem undecidable [4], although decidability results have been obtained for restricted classes of entailments [5,22]. Alongside these theoretical developments, there are automated tools geared towards the proof [13,17] and disproof [12] of entailments, as needed to support program verification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright and moral rights to this thesis/research project are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Any use of the thesis/research project for private study or research must be properly acknowledged with reference to the work's full bibliographic details.This thesis/research project may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from it, or its content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s).If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address:eprints@mdx.ac.ukThe item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. AbstractWe investigate the model checking problem for symbolic-heap separation logic with user-defined inductive predicates, i.e., the problem of checking that a given stack-heap memory state satisfies a given formula in this language, as arises e.g. in software testing or runtime verification. First, we show that the problem is decidable; specifically, we present a bottom-up fixed point algorithm that decides the problem and runs in exponential time in the size of the problem instance.Second, we show that, while model checking for the full language is EXPTIME-complete, the problem becomes NP-complete or PTIME-solvable when we impose natural syntactic restrictions on the schemata defining the inductive predicates. We additionally present NP and PTIME algorithms for these restricted fragments.Finally, we report on the experimental performance of our procedures on a variety of specifications extracted from programs, exercising multiple combinations of syntactic restrictions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking for symbolic-heap separation logic with inductive predicates

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ability to model-check formulas also opens up the possibility of disproving entailments in our logic via the direct generation and testing of possible countermodels, in contrast e.g. to the approach based on overapproximation in [12]. We are uncertain as to the scalability of such an approach, but nevertheless consider it an interesting avenue for potential future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%