Increasing Confidence in Liveness Model Checking Results with Proofs

Kuismin, Tuomas; Heljanko, Keijo

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03077-7_3

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the most related works, [31] proposes to reduce liveness to safety (with a variant of k-liveness) and to generate a proof for the resulting invariant property. However, the translation is trusted and the proof does not target the original system but just the result of the reduction.…”

Section: Related Work and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Certifying proofs for SAT-based model checking

Griggio

Roveri

Tonetta

2021

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of formal verification, certifying proofs are evidences of the correctness of a model in a deduction system produced automatically as outcome of the verification. They are quite appealing for high-assurance systems because they can be verified independently by proof checkers, which are usually simpler to certify than the proof-generating tools. Model checking is one of the most prominent approaches to formal verification of temporal properties and is based on an algorithmic search of the system state space. Although modern algorithms integrate deductive methods, the generation of proofs is typically restricted to invariant properties only. Moreover, it assumes that the verification produces an inductive invariant of the original system, while model checkers usually involve a variety of complex pre-processing simplifications. In this paper we show how, exploiting the k-liveness algorithm, to extend proof generation capabilities for invariant checking to cover full linear-time temporal logic (LTL) properties, in a simple and efficient manner, with essentially no overhead for the model checker. Besides the basic k-liveness algorithm, we integrate in the proof generation a variety of widely used pre-processing techniques such as temporal decomposition, model simplification via computation of equivalences with ternary simulation, and the use of stabilizing constraints. These techniques are essential in many cases to prove that a property holds, both for invariant and for LTL model checking, and thus need to be considered within the proof. We implemented the proof generation techniques on top of IC3 engines, and show the feasibility of the approach on a variety of benchmarks taken from the literature and from the Hardware Model Checking Competition. Our results confirm that proof generation results in negligible overhead for the model checker.

show abstract

Section: Related Work and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Certifying proofs for SAT-based model checking

Griggio

Roveri

Tonetta

2021

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intuitively, a safety property specifies that the system must not violate certain behaviours, i.e., only "good states" are reachable. In this paper we focus on such simple safety properties and leave liveness properties (see e.g., [29]) etc. for future work.…”

Section: Circuitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though counterexample validation is commonly used in model checking to certify negative verification results through simulation, producing a generic machine checkable proof on success is less straight-forward. To mitigate this problem, certification of model checking has been suggested earlier in [14,21,23,29,33,36,37], but the methods presented in these works are either not directly applicable to k-induction (in its vanilla form), produce k-induction specific certificates (fail to provide an inductive invariant), or are considered to have exponential certificates. This apparently made it hard to, e.g., require all model checkers to produce proofs in the hardware model checking competitions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress in Certifying Hardware Model Checking Results

Biere

Heljanko

2021

Computer Aided Verification

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a formal framework to certify k-induction-based model checking results. The key idea is the notion of a k-witness circuit which simulates the given circuit and has a simple inductive invariant serving as proof certificate. Our approach allows to check proofs with an independent proof checker by reducing the certification problem to pure SAT checks and checking a simple QBF with one quantifier alternation. We also present Certifaiger, the resulting certification toolkit, and evaluate it on instances from the hardware model checking competition. Our experiments show the practical use of our certification method.

show abstract

“…In SAT, certifying proofs is an established technology [5] and for instance mandatory in the SAT competition since 2013. In [6], the authors present an approach for certifying liveness properties using the k-liveness [7,8] approach to map the problem into a safety property and then proving an inductive invariant. The paper uses an IC3-based model checker and suggests validating the invariants provided by IC3 using a SAT solver but provides no experimental data on the invariant validation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Certifying Hardware Model Checking Results

Biere

Heljanko

2019

Formal Methods and Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model checking is used widely as a formal verification technique for safety-critical systems. Certifying the correctness of model checking results helps increasing confidence in the verification procedure. This can be achieved by additional book-keeping inside existing model checkers. Based on this, we extended an existing BDD-based model checker as well as an IC3-based incremental inductive model checker, to generate certificates during the model checking procedure. We also introduce a proof checker which provides a standardised way to validate certificates generated from model checkers in conjunction with a SAT solver. The main goal is to establish a certification process for the hardware model checking competition.

show abstract

Increasing Confidence in Liveness Model Checking Results with Proofs

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Certifying proofs for SAT-based model checking

Certifying proofs for SAT-based model checking

Progress in Certifying Hardware Model Checking Results

Certifying Hardware Model Checking Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About