Infinite State Model Checking by Abstract Interpretation and Program Specialisation

Program Specialization for Verifying Infinite State Systems: An Experimental Evaluation

“…Our approach is closely related to other verification methods for infinite state systems based on the specialization of (constraint) logic programs [26,28,31]. However, unlike the approach proposed in [26,28] we use constraints, which give us very powerful means for dealing with infinite sets of states.…”

“…However, unlike the approach proposed in [26,28] we use constraints, which give us very powerful means for dealing with infinite sets of states. The specializationbased verification method presented in [31] consists of one phase only, incorporating top-down query directed specialization and bottom-up answer propagation.…”

“…The satisfaction relation |= can be encoded by a predicate sat defined by the following clauses [16] (see also [28,30] for similar encodings):…”

“…This is due to the limited ability of these proof procedures to cope with infinitely failed derivations. For this reason, instead of simply applying program evaluation, many logic programming-based verification systems make use of reasoning techniques such as: (i) abstract interpretation [4,14] and (ii) program transformation [16,26,28,31,35].…”

Using Real Relaxations during Program Specialization

“…However, if ¬ϕ = def ∃x ∈ R (reachable(x) ∧ ∧ ¬safe(x)) holds, then we cannot conclude that ∃x ∈ Z (reachable(x) ∧ ∧ ¬safe(x)) holds. Now, as indicated in the literature (see, for instance, [17,19,29,30,31]) the verification of infinite state reactive systems can be done via program specialization and, in particular, in [19] we proposed a technique consisting of the following two steps: (Step 1) the specialization of the constraint logic program that encodes the given system, with respect to the query that encodes the property to be verified, and (Step 2) the construction of the perfect model of the specialized program.…”