Separation Logic Modulo Theories

Pérez, Juan Antonio; Rybalchenko, Andrey

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03542-0_7

Cited by 42 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Possible candidates for such extensions include: higher-order separation logic [6]; the fragment in which formulas may contain pure assertions beyond (dis)equalities [22]; and separation logic with fractional permissions [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(In very recent work [25], Piskac et al extended their approach to support also tree-shaped data structures.) Finally, Navarro Pérez and Rybalchenko [22] provided an SMT encoding for satisfiability and entailment in another extension of the fragment allowing pure formulas from arbitrary SMT theories, rather than simple (dis)equalities.…”

Section: Satisfiability In Separation Logic With Inductive Predicatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates

Brotherston

Fuhs

Pérez

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Twenty-Third EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL) and the Twenty-Nin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We show that the satisfiability problem for the "symbolic heap" fragment of separation logic with general inductively defined predicates -which includes most fragments employed in program verification -is decidable. Our decision procedure is based on the computation of a certain fixed point from the definition of an inductive predicate, called its "base", that exactly characterises its satisfiability.A complexity analysis of our decision procedure shows that it runs, in the worst case, in exponential time. In fact, we show that the satisfiability problem for our inductive predicates is EXPTIMEcomplete, and becomes NP-complete when the maximum arity over all predicates is bounded by a constant.Finally, we provide an implementation of our decision procedure, and analyse its performance both on a synthetically generated set of test formulas, and on a second test set harvested from the separation logic literature. For the large majority of these test cases, our tool reports times in the low milliseconds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Satisfiability In Separation Logic With Inductive Predicatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates

Brotherston

Fuhs

Pérez

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Twenty-Third EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL) and the Twenty-Nin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Asterix is presented in details in [21]. It was submitted by Juan Navarro Perez (at the time at University College London, UK, now at Google) and Andrey Rybalchenko (at the time at TU Munich, Germany, now at Microsoft Research Cambridge, UK).…”

Section: Asterixmentioning

confidence: 99%

SL-COMP: Competition of Solvers for Separation Logic

Sighireanu

Pérez

Rybalchenko

et al. 2019

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SL-COMP aims at bringing together researchers interested on improving the state of the art of the automated deduction methods for Separation Logic (SL). The event took place twice until now and collected more than 1K problems for different fragments of SL. The input format of problems is based on the SMT-LIB format and therefore fully typed; only one new command is added to SMT-LIB's list, the command for the declaration of the heap's type. The SMT-LIB theory of SL comes with ten logics, some of them being combinations of SL with linear arithmetics. The competition's divisions are defined by the logic fragment, the kind of decision problem (satisfiability or entailment) and the presence of quantifiers. Until now, SL-COMP has been run on the StarExec platform, where the benchmark set and the binaries of participant solvers are freely available. The benchmark set is also available with the competition's documentation on a public repository in GitHub.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, several high performance automated provers for separation logics have been developed, e.g. [8,2,15,63,9,64,71,74,72], while there are no automated provers available for matching logic yet. A technical challenge, left for future work, is to investigate the techniques and algorithms underlying the existing separation logic provers and to generalize them if possible to work with matching logic in general or at least with common fragments of it.…”

Section: G Roşumentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching logic

Roşu

Ștefănescu

2011

Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Matching logic is a new program verification logic, which builds upon operational semantics. Matching logic specifications are constrained symbolic program configurations, called patterns, which can be matched by concrete configurations. By building upon an operational semantics of the language and allowing specifications to directly refer to the structure of the configuration, matching logic has at least three benefits: (1) One's familiarity with the formalism reduces to one's familiarity with the operational semantics of the language, that is, with the language itself; (2) The verification process proceeds the same way as the program execution, making debugging failed proof attempts manageable because one can always see the "current configuration" and "what went wrong", same like in a debugger; and (3) Nothing is lost in translation, that is, there is no gap between the language itself and its verifier. Moreover, direct access to the structure of the configuration facilitates defining subpatterns that one may reason about, such as disjoint lists or trees in the heap, as well as supporting framing in various components of the configuration at no additional costs.

show abstract

Separation Logic Modulo Theories

Cited by 42 publications

References 28 publications

A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates

A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates

SL-COMP: Competition of Solvers for Separation Logic

Matching logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About