SL-COMP: Competition of Solvers for Separation Logic

Sighireanu, Mihaela; Pérez, Juan Antonio; Rybalchenko, Andrey; Gorogiannis, Nikos; Iosif, Radu; Reynolds, Andrew; Şerban, Cristina; Katelaan, Jens; Matheja, Christoph; Noll, Thomas; Zuleger, Florian; Chin, Wei-Ngan; Le, Quang Loc; Ta, Quang-Trung; Le, Ton-Chanh; Nguyen, Thanh-Hung; Khoo, Siau‐Cheng; Cyprian, Michal; Rogalewicz, Adam; Vojnar, Tomáš; Enea, Constantin; Lengál, Ondřej; Gao, Chong; Zhang, Wu

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_8

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our evaluation plan is as follows. For SL, we used the 280 benchmark properties collected by the SL-COMP'19 competition [Sighireanu et al 2019]. These properties are entailment properties about various inductively-defined heap structures, including several hand-crafted, challenging structures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our first evaluation is based on the standard separation logic benchmark set collected by SL-COMP'19 [Sighireanu et al 2019]. These benchmarks are considered challenging because they are related to heap-allocated data structures along with user-defined recursive predicates crafted by participants to challenge the competitors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We were inspired and challenged by work on automation of inductive proofs for separation logic [Reynolds 2002], which resulted in several automatic separation logic provers; see [Sighireanu et al 2019] for those that participated in the recent SL-COMP'19 competition. Since separation logic is undecidable [Brotherston and Kanovich 2014], many provers implement only decision procedures to decidable fragments [Berdine et al 2004;Enea et al 2017; or incomplete algorithms [Berdine et al 2005;Chin et al 2012;Iosif et al 2013].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our way of dealing with mutual recursion is to reduce it to several non-mutual, simple recursions. We use the following separation logic challenge test qf_shid_entl/10.tst.smt2 from the SL-COMP'19 competition [Sighireanu et al 2019] as an example. Consider the following definition of list segments of odd and even length:…”

Section: A Mutual Recursionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We believe that they form a good benchmark for evaluating a unified proof framework for fixpoint reasoning, so we set ourselves the long-term goal to support all of them. We will give special emphases to separation logic (SL) in this paper, however, because it gathered much attention in recent years that resulted in several automated SL provers and its own international competition SL-COMP'19 [Sighireanu et al 2019].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Towards a unified proof framework for automated fixpoint reasoning using matching logic

Chen

Trinh

Rodrigues

et al. 2020

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automation of fixpoint reasoning has been extensively studied for various mathematical structures, logical formalisms, and computational domains, resulting in specialized fixpoint provers for heaps, for streams, for term algebras, for temporal properties, for program correctness, and for many other formal systems and inductive and coinductive properties. However, in spite of great theoretical and practical interest, there is no unified framework for automated fixpoint reasoning. Although several attempts have been made, there is no evidence that such a unified framework is possible, or practical. In this paper, we propose a candidate based on matching logic, a formalism recently shown to theoretically unify the above mentioned formal systems. Unfortunately, the (knaster-tarski) proof rule of matching logic, which enables inductive reasoning, is not syntax-driven. Worse, it can be applied at any step during a proof, making automation seem hopeless. Inspired by recent advances in automation of inductive proofs in separation logic, we propose an alternative proof system for matching logic, which is amenable for automation. We then discuss our implementation of it, which although not superior to specialized state-of-the-art automated provers for specific domains, we believe brings some evidence and hope that a unified framework for automated reasoning is not out of reach.CCS Concepts: • Theory of computation → Automated reasoning; Proof theory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Mutual Recursionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Towards a unified proof framework for automated fixpoint reasoning using matching logic

Chen

Trinh

Rodrigues

et al. 2020

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

TOOLympics 2019: An Overview of Competitions in Formal Methods

Bartocci

Beyer

Black³

et al. 2019

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of scientific contributions can be done in many different ways. For the various research communities working on the verification of systems (software, hardware, or the underlying involved mechanisms), it is important to bring together the community and to compare the state of the art, in order to identify progress of and new challenges in the research area. Competitions are a suitable way to do that. The first verification competition was created in 1992 (SAT competition), shortly followed by the CASC competition in 1996. Since the year 2000, the number of dedicated verification competitions is steadily increasing. Many of these events now happen regularly, gathering researchers that would like to understand how well their research prototypes work in practice. Scientific results have to be reproducible, and powerful computers are becoming cheaper and cheaper, thus, these competitions are becoming an important means for advancing research in verification technology. TOOLympics 2019 is an event to celebrate the achievements of the various competitions, and to understand their commonalities and differences. This volume is dedicated to the presentation of the 16 competitions that joined TOOLympics as part of the celebration of the 25 th anniversary of the TACAS conference.

show abstract

Compositional Satisfiability Solving in Separation Logic

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SL-COMP: Competition of Solvers for Separation Logic

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Towards a unified proof framework for automated fixpoint reasoning using matching logic

Towards a unified proof framework for automated fixpoint reasoning using matching logic

TOOLympics 2019: An Overview of Competitions in Formal Methods

Compositional Satisfiability Solving in Separation Logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About