The COST IC0701 Verification Competition 2011

Bormer, Thorsten; Brockschmidt, Marc; Distefano, Dino; Ernst, Gerhard; Filliâtre, Jean-Christophe; Grigore, Radu; Huisman, Marieke; Klebanov, Vladimir; Marché, Claude; Monahan, Rosemary; Mostowski, Wojciech; Polikarpova, Nadia; Scheben, Christoph; Schellhorn, Gerhard; Tofan, Bogdan; Tschannen, Julian; Ulbrich, Mattias

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31762-0_2

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rest of the table is split in two parts: the first one contains data about two-step verification; the second one the same data about modular verification. The data reported includes: the amount of specification The examples include: (1) finding the maximum in an array, from the COST 2011 verification competition [6]; (2) computing maximum and sum of the elements in an array, from the VSTTE 2010 verification competition [22]; (3) the two-way sort algorithm of Section 2, from the VSTTE 2012 verification competition [16]; (4) Dikstra's Dutch national flag algorithm [13]; (5) computing the longest common prefix of two sequences, from the FM 2012 verification competition [19]; (6) a priority queue implementation, from Tinelli's verification course [32]; (7) a double-ended queue [23, Vol. 1, Sec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Tschannen

Furia

Nordio

et al. 2014

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The simple and often imprecise specifications that programmers may write are a significant limit to a wider application of rigorous program verification techniques. Part of the reason why non-specialists find writing good specification hard is that, when verification fails, they receive little guidance as to what the causes might be, such as implementation errors or inaccurate specifications. To address these limitations, this paper presents two-step verification, a technique that combines implicit specifications, inlining, and loop unrolling to provide improved user feedback when verification fails. Two-step verification performs two independent verification attempts for each program element: one using standard modular reasoning, and another one after inlining and unrolling; comparing the outcomes of the two steps suggests which elements should be improved. Two-step verification is implemented in AutoProof, our static verifier for Eiffel programs integrated in EVE (the Eiffel Verification Environment) and available online. The Trouble with SpecsThere was a time when formal verification required heroic efforts and was the exclusive domain of a small group of visionaries. That time is now over; but formal techniques still seem a long way from becoming commonplace. If formal verification techniques are to become a standard part of the software development process-and they are-we have to understand and remove the obstacles that still prevent non-specialists from using them.A crucial issue is specification. Program correctness is a relative notion, in that a program is correct not in absolute terms but only relative to a given specification of its expected behavior; in other words, verified programs are only as good as their specification. Unfortunately, many programmers are averse to writing specifications, especially formal ones, for a variety of reasons that mostly boil down a benefit-to-effort ratio perceived as too low. Writing formal specifications may require specialized skills and experience; and the concrete benefits are dubious in environments that value productivity, assessed through simple quantitative measures, more than quality. Why should programmers subject themselves to the taxing exercise of writing specifications in addition to implementations, if there is not much in it for them other than duplicated work?

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Program Checking with Less Hassle

Tschannen

Furia

Nordio

et al. 2014

Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the Tree Deletion challenge we initially expected the iterative nature of the algorithm over a recursive data structure to be the source of difficulties. Although, judging from a similar previous challenge [5], we still think that the recursive implementation would be simpler to verify; with the help of model methods we employed the recursion on the specification level and provided an elegant solution to this challenge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the authors of this paper are experienced users and have been active developers of the KeY system for several years. Moreover, all of them participated in similar events previously [5,10,15], always with the combination of Java, JML, and KeY.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation-level verification of algorithms with KeY

Bruns

Mostowski

Ulbrich

2013

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We give an account on the authors' experience and results from the software verification competition held at the Formal Methods 2012 conference. Competitions like this are meant to provide a benchmark for verification systems. It consisted of three algorithms which the authors have implemented in Java, specified with the Java Modeling Language, and verified using the KeY system. Building on our solutions, we argue that verification systems which target implementations in real-world programming languages better have powerful abstraction capabilities. Regarding the KeY tool, we explain features which, driven by the competition, have been freshly implemented to accommodate for these demands.

show abstract

“…В настоящее время для экспериментов в нашей системе мы используем програм-мы из соревнования COST IC0701 [7] и 1-го соревнования верифицированного про-граммного обеспечения [11]. Отличительная особенность сравнения эффективности систем верификации состоит в том, что они сравниваются не только по произво-дительности (измеренной в (милли)секундах).…”

Section: пример поиск максимума в массивеunclassified