Software and Computational Systems Lab

Publications about Software Model Checking

1. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Six Years Later: Testing vs. Model Checking. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 2024. Keyword(s): Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP PDF
   Artifact(s)

   1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10232648
   Abstract

   Six years ago, we performed the first large-scale comparison of automated test generators and software model checkers with respect to bug-finding capabilities on a benchmark set with 5 693 C programs. Since then, the International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp) has established standardized formats and community-agreed rules for the experimental comparison of test generators. With this new context, it is time to revisit our initial question: Model checkers or test generators—which tools are more effective in finding bugs in software? To answer this, we perform a comparative analysis on the tools and existing data published by two competitions, the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP) and Test-Comp. The results provide two insights: (1) Almost all test generators that participate in Test-Comp use hybrid approaches that include formal methods, and (2) while the considered model checkers are still highly competitive, they are now outperformed by the bug-finding capabilities of the considered test generators.
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{TestStudy-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Six Years Later: Testing vs. Model Checking}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, doi = {}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-STTT.Six_Years_Later_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {}, abstract = {Six years ago, we performed the first large-scale comparison of automated test generators and software model checkers with respect to bug-finding capabilities on a benchmark set with 5 693 C programs. Since then, the International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp) has established standardized formats and community-agreed rules for the experimental comparison of test generators. With this new context, it is time to revisit our initial question: Model checkers or test generators—which tools are more effective in finding bugs in software? To answer this, we perform a comparative analysis on the tools and existing data published by two competitions, the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP) and Test-Comp. The results provide two insights: (1) Almost all test generators that participate in Test-Comp use hybrid approaches that include formal methods, and (2) while the considered model checkers are still highly competitive, they are now outperformed by the bug-finding capabilities of the considered test generators.}, keyword = {Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10232648}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
2. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marek Jankola, and Nian-Ze Lee. A Transferability Study of Interpolation-Based Hardware Model Checking for Software Verification. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., 1(FSE), 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3660797 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
   Artifact(s)

   1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11070973
   Abstract

   Assuring the correctness of computing systems is fundamental to our society and economy, and formal verification is a class of techniques approaching this issue with mathematical rigor. Researchers have invented numerous algorithms to automatically prove whether a computational model, e.g., a software program or a hardware digital circuit, satisfies its specification. In the past two decades, Craig interpolation has been widely used in both hardware and software verification. Despite the similarities in the theoretical foundation between hardware and software verification, previous works usually evaluate interpolation-based algorithms on only one type of verification tasks (e.g., either circuits or programs), so the conclusions of these studies do not necessarily transfer to different types of verification tasks. To investigate the transferability of research conclusions from hardware to software, we adopt two performant approaches of interpolation-based hardware model checking, (1) Interpolation-Sequence-Based Model Checking (Vizel and Grumberg, 2009) and (2) Intertwined Forward-Backward Reachability Analysis Using Interpolants (Vizel, Grumberg, and Shoham, 2013), for software verification. We implement the algorithms proposed by the two publications in the software verifier CPAchecker because it has a software-verification adoption of the first interpolation-based algorithm for hardware model checking from 2003, which the two publications use as a comparison baseline. To assess whether the claims in the two publications transfer to software verification, we conduct an extensive experiment on the largest publicly available suite of safety-verification tasks for the programming language C. Our experimental results show that the important characteristics of the two approaches for hardware model checking are transferable to software verification, and that the cross-disciplinary algorithm adoption is beneficial, as the approaches adopted from hardware model checking were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. This work consolidates the knowledge in hardware and software verification and provides open-source implementations to improve the understanding of the compared interpolation-based algorithms.
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{ItpTransfer-PACMSE, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marek Jankola and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {A Transferability Study of Interpolation-Based Hardware Model Checking for Software Verification}, journal = {Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.}, volume = {1}, number = {FSE}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3660797}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/dar-ismc-transferability/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-07-18_FSE_A_Transferability_Study_of_Interpolation-Based_HWMC_for_SV_Marek.pdf}, abstract = {Assuring the correctness of computing systems is fundamental to our society and economy, and <em>formal verification</em> is a class of techniques approaching this issue with mathematical rigor. Researchers have invented numerous algorithms to automatically prove whether a computational model, e.g., a software program or a hardware digital circuit, satisfies its specification. In the past two decades, <em>Craig interpolation</em> has been widely used in both hardware and software verification. Despite the similarities in the theoretical foundation between hardware and software verification, previous works usually evaluate interpolation-based algorithms on only one type of verification tasks (e.g., either circuits or programs), so the conclusions of these studies do not necessarily transfer to different types of verification tasks. To investigate the transferability of research conclusions from hardware to software, we adopt two performant approaches of interpolation-based hardware model checking, (1) <em>Interpolation-Sequence-Based Model Checking</em> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351148">Vizel and Grumberg, 2009</a>) and (2) <em>Intertwined Forward-Backward Reachability Analysis Using Interpolants</em> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_22">Vizel, Grumberg, and Shoham, 2013</a>), for software verification. We implement the algorithms proposed by the two publications in the software verifier CPAchecker because it has a software-verification adoption of the first interpolation-based algorithm for hardware model checking from 2003, which the two publications use as a comparison baseline. To assess whether the claims in the two publications transfer to software verification, we conduct an extensive experiment on the largest publicly available suite of safety-verification tasks for the programming language C. Our experimental results show that the important characteristics of the two approaches for hardware model checking are transferable to software verification, and that the cross-disciplinary algorithm adoption is beneficial, as the approaches adopted from hardware model checking were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. This work consolidates the knowledge in hardware and software verification and provides open-source implementations to improve the understanding of the compared interpolation-based algorithms.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FSE.A_Transferability_Study_of_Interpolation-Based_Hardware_Model_Checking_for_Software_Verification.pdf}, annote = {This article received the "ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award" and its reproduction artifact received the "ACM SIGSOFT Best Artifact Award" at <a href="https://2024.esec-fse.org/info/awards">FSE 2024</a>!}, articleno = {90}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.11070973}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, issue_date = {July 2024}, numpages = {23}, }
   Additional Infos

   This article received the "ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award" and its reproduction artifact received the "ACM SIGSOFT Best Artifact Award" at FSE 2024!
3. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Kettl, and Thomas Lemberger. Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., 1(FSE), 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3660766 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
   Artifact(s)

   1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11095864
   Abstract

   There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (which program states reach this block) and verification conditions to check at the block exit (which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a precondition or verification condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach as an extension of the configurable-program-analysis algorithm and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{DSS-PACMSE, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis}, journal = {Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.}, volume = {1}, number = {FSE}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3660766}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/distributed-summary-synthesis/}, presentation = {}, abstract = {There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (which program states reach this block) and verification conditions to check at the block exit (which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a precondition or verification condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach as an extension of the configurable-program-analysis algorithm and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FSE.Decomposing_Software_Verification_using_Distributed_Summary_Synthesis.pdf}, articleno = {90}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.11095864}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-COOP}, issue_date = {July 2024}, numpages = {23}, }
4. Dirk Beyer, Nian-Ze Lee, and Philipp Wendler. Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2024. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{IMC-JAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Nian-Ze Lee and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification}, journal = {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, doi = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-JAR.Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited_Adoption_to_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {}, }
5. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Parallel program analysis on path ranges. Science of Computer Programming, 238, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2024.103154 Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version
   Artifact(s)

   1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8398988
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{RangedPA-journal, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Parallel program analysis on path ranges}, journal = {Science of Computer Programming}, volume = {238}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1016/j.scico.2024.103154}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8398988}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
6. Thomas Lemberger. Cooperative Approaches Across Test Generation and Formal Software Verification. Softwaretechnik-Trends, 44(2):66-67, July 2024. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Berlin. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification PDF
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{SW-Trends24, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Cooperative Approaches Across Test Generation and Formal Software Verification}, journal = {Softwaretechnik-Trends}, volume = {44}, number = {2}, pages = {66-67}, year = {2024}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Informatik, Berlin}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SWT.Cooperatives_Approaches_Across_Test_Generation_and_Formal_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, annote = {Summary of dissertation}, doinone = {DOI not available}, issn = {0720-8928}, month = {July}, }
   Additional Infos

   Summary of dissertation
7. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. Verification Witnesses. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31(4):57:1-57:69, 2022. doi:10.1145/3477579 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{Witnesses-TOSEM, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Thomas Lemberger and Michael Tautschnig}, title = {Verification Witnesses}, journal = {ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.}, volume = {31}, number = {4}, pages = {57:1-57:69}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1145/3477579}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/verification-witnesses-tosem/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TOSEM.Verification_Witnesses.pdf}, _sha256 = {48acf3f35251df635e829b29fe8f16fd50498f8f99a082b8b9e0aa094a97a432}, }
8. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing with CoVeriTest. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 23(3):313-333, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00587-8 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
   Abstract

   Testing is a widely applied technique to evaluate software quality, and coverage criteria are often used to assess the adequacy of a generated test suite. However, manually constructing an adequate test suite is typically too expensive, and numerous techniques for automatic test-suite generation were proposed. All of them come with different strengths. To build stronger test-generation tools, different techniques should be combined. In this paper, we study cooperative combinations of verification approaches for test generation, which exchange high-level information. We present CoVeriTest, a hybrid technique for test-suite generation. CoVeriTest iteratively applies different conditional model checkers and allows users to adjust the level of cooperation and to configure individual time limits for each conditional model checker. In our experiments, we systematically study different CoVeriTest cooperation setups, which either use combinations of explicit-state model checking and predicate abstraction, or bounded model checking and symbolic execution. A comparison with state-of-the-art test-generation tools reveals that CoVeriTest achieves higher coverage for many programs (about 15
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{CoVeriTest-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing with {CoVeriTest}}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {23}, number = {3}, pages = {313-333}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-020-00587-8}, sha256 = {28a5bf6103296455728076e8c12902a53b3d377a296ea2ba18ac111c93330dbd}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {Testing is a widely applied technique to evaluate software quality, and coverage criteria are often used to assess the adequacy of a generated test suite. However, manually constructing an adequate test suite is typically too expensive, and numerous techniques for automatic test-suite generation were proposed. All of them come with different strengths. To build stronger test-generation tools, different techniques should be combined. In this paper, we study cooperative combinations of verification approaches for test generation, which exchange high-level information. We present CoVeriTest, a hybrid technique for test-suite generation. CoVeriTest iteratively applies different conditional model checkers and allows users to adjust the level of cooperation and to configure individual time limits for each conditional model checker. In our experiments, we systematically study different CoVeriTest cooperation setups, which either use combinations of explicit-state model checking and predicate abstraction, or bounded model checking and symbolic execution. A comparison with state-of-the-art test-generation tools reveals that CoVeriTest achieves higher coverage for many programs (about 15%).}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
9. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. A Unifying View on SMT-Based Software Verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 60(3):299-335, 2018. doi:10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
   Abstract

   After many years of successful development of new approaches for software verification, there is a need to consolidate the knowledge about the different abstract domains and algorithms. The goal of this paper is to provide a compact and accessible presentation of four SMT-based verification approaches in order to study them in theory and in practice. We present and compare the following different "schools of thought" of software verification: bounded model checking, k-induction, predicate abstraction, and lazy abstraction with interpolants. Those approaches are well-known and successful in software verification and have in common that they are based on SMT solving as the back-end technology. We reformulate all four approaches in the unifying theoretical framework of configurable program analysis and implement them in the verification framework CPAchecker. Based on this, we can present an evaluation that thoroughly compares the different approaches, where the core differences are expressed in configuration parameters and all other variables are kept constant (such as parser front end, SMT solver, used theory in SMT formulas). We evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the approaches on a large set of verification tasks and discuss the conclusions.
   BibTeX Entry

   @article{AlgorithmComparison-JAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {A Unifying View on {SMT}-Based Software Verification}, journal = {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, volume = {60}, number = {3}, pages = {299--335}, year = {2018}, doi = {10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6}, sha256 = {5fab3eafacd7fef9c655afc9cd78bbb419ea47361a81633fb551fbf496875d84}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/k-ind-compare/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/Latest_UnifyingViewSmtBasedSoftwareVerification.pdf}, abstract = {After many years of successful development of new approaches for software verification, there is a need to consolidate the knowledge about the different abstract domains and algorithms. The goal of this paper is to provide a compact and accessible presentation of four SMT-based verification approaches in order to study them in theory and in practice. We present and compare the following different ``schools of thought'' of software verification: bounded model checking, k-induction, predicate abstraction, and lazy abstraction with interpolants. Those approaches are well-known and successful in software verification and have in common that they are based on SMT solving as the back-end technology. We reformulate all four approaches in the unifying theoretical framework of configurable program analysis and implement them in the verification framework CPAchecker. Based on this, we can present an evaluation that thoroughly compares the different approaches, where the core differences are expressed in configuration parameters and all other variables are kept constant (such as parser front end, SMT solver, used theory in SMT formulas). We evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the approaches on a large set of verification tasks and discuss the conclusions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-JAR.A_Unifying_View_on_SMT-Based_Software_Verification.pdf}, annote = {Publication appeared first online in December 2017<BR/> CPAchecker is available at: <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/"> https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/</a>}, issn = {1573-0670}, }
   Additional Infos

   Publication appeared first online in December 2017
   CPAchecker is available at: https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/
10. Marie-Christine Jakobs. Spontane Sicherheitsprüfung mittels individualisierter Programmzertifizierung oder Programmrestrukturierung. In S. Hölldobler, editors, Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017, LNI, pages 91-100, 2018. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract

    Korrekt funktionierende Software gewinnt immer mehr an Bedeutung. Im Vergleich zu früher ist es heutzutage schwieriger einzuschätzen, wie gut eine Software funktioniert. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass Endnutzer häufiger Software unbekannter Hersteller installieren. Endnutzer sollten sich also aktiv von der Softwarekorrektheit überzeugen, zum Beispiel in Form einer spontanen Sicherheitsprüfung. Übliche Verifikationstechniken zur Korrektheitsprüfung kommen für Endnutzer, in der Regel Laien, nicht in Frage. Die zentrale Frage ist daher, wie man einem Laien eine solche spontane Sicherheitsprüfung ermöglicht. Die Antwort der Dissertation sind einfache, automatische und generelle Verfahren zur Sicherheitsprüfung. In der Dissertation werden verschiedene Verfahren vorgeschlagen und sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch untersucht. Die vorgeschlagenen Verfahren lassen sich in zwei Forschungsrichtungen einsortieren, nämlich in die Gruppe der Proof-Carrying Code Verfahren bzw. in die Gruppe des alternativen Programs from Proofs Verfahren. Einige Verfahren kombinieren beide Forschungsrichtungen.
    BibTeX Entry

    @incollection{DissZusammenfassungJakobs, author = {Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Spontane Sicherheitspr{\"{u}}fung mittels individualisierter Programmzertifizierung oder Programmrestrukturierung}, booktitle = {Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017}, editor = {S. H{\"{o}}lldobler}, volume = {{D-18}}, pages = {91-100}, year = {2018}, series = {{LNI}}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, isbn = {978-3885799771}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/19486/invited_paper_14.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, abstract = {Korrekt funktionierende Software gewinnt immer mehr an Bedeutung. Im Vergleich zu fr&uuml;her ist es heutzutage schwieriger einzusch&auml;tzen, wie gut eine Software funktioniert. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass Endnutzer h&auml;ufiger Software unbekannter Hersteller installieren. Endnutzer sollten sich also aktiv von der Softwarekorrektheit &uuml;berzeugen, zum Beispiel in Form einer spontanen Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung. &Uuml;bliche Verifikationstechniken zur Korrektheitspr&uuml;fung kommen f&uuml;r Endnutzer, in der Regel Laien, nicht in Frage. Die zentrale Frage ist daher, wie man einem Laien eine solche spontane Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung erm&ouml;glicht. Die Antwort der Dissertation sind einfache, automatische und generelle Verfahren zur Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung. In der Dissertation werden verschiedene Verfahren vorgeschlagen und sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch untersucht. Die vorgeschlagenen Verfahren lassen sich in zwei Forschungsrichtungen einsortieren, n&auml;mlich in die Gruppe der Proof-Carrying Code Verfahren bzw. in die Gruppe des alternativen Programs from Proofs Verfahren. Einige Verfahren kombinieren beide Forschungsrichtungen.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a German summary of the dissertation On-The-Fly Safety Checking - Customizing Program Certification and Program Restructuring.}, doifalse = {20.500.12116/19486}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/19486}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a German summary of the dissertation On-The-Fly Safety Checking - Customizing Program Certification and Program Restructuring.
11. Philipp Wendler. Beiträge zu praktikabler Prädikatenanalyse. In S. Hölldobler, editors, Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017, LNI, pages 261-270, 2018. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): Benchmarking, CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    Der Stand der Forschung im Bereich der automatischen Software-Verifikation ist fragmentiert. Verschiedene Verfahren existieren nebeneinander in unterschiedlichen Darstellungen und mit wenig Bezug zueinander, aussagekräftige Vergleiche sind selten. Die Dissertation adressiert dieses Problem. Ein konfigurierbares und flexibles Rahmenwerk zur Vereinheitlichung solcher Verfahren wird entwickelt und mehrere vorhandene Verfahren werden in diesem Rahmenwerk ausgedrückt. Dies bringt neue Erkenntnisse über die Kernideen dieser Verfahren, ermöglicht experimentelle Studien in einer neuartigen Qualität, und erleichtert die Forschung an Kombinationen und Weiterentwicklungen dieser Verfahren. Die Implementierung dieses Rahmenwerks im erfolgreichen Verifizierer CPAchecker wird in der bisher größten derartigen experimentellen Studie (120 verschiedene Konfigurationen, 671280 Ausführungen) evaluiert. Hierzu wird ein Benchmarking-System präsentiert, das mit Hilfe moderner Technologien signifikante qualitative Messfehler existierender Systeme vermeidet.
    BibTeX Entry

    @incollection{DissZusammenfassungWendler, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {Beitr{\"{a}}ge zu praktikabler Pr{\"{a}}dikatenanalyse}, booktitle = {Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017}, editor = {S. H{\"{o}}lldobler}, volume = {{D-18}}, pages = {261-270}, year = {2018}, series = {{LNI}}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, isbn = {978-3885799771}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/wendler/}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/19476/invited_paper_4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-05-08_GiDiss_BeitraegeZuPraktikablerPraedikatenanalyse.pdf}, abstract = {Der Stand der Forschung im Bereich der automatischen Software-Verifikation ist fragmentiert. Verschiedene Verfahren existieren nebeneinander in unterschiedlichen Darstellungen und mit wenig Bezug zueinander, aussagekr&auml;ftige Vergleiche sind selten. Die Dissertation adressiert dieses Problem. Ein konfigurierbares und flexibles Rahmenwerk zur Vereinheitlichung solcher Verfahren wird entwickelt und mehrere vorhandene Verfahren werden in diesem Rahmenwerk ausgedr&uuml;ckt. Dies bringt neue Erkenntnisse &uuml;ber die Kernideen dieser Verfahren, erm&ouml;glicht experimentelle Studien in einer neuartigen Qualit&auml;t, und erleichtert die Forschung an Kombinationen und Weiterentwicklungen dieser Verfahren. Die Implementierung dieses Rahmenwerks im erfolgreichen Verifizierer CPAchecker wird in der bisher gr&ouml;&szlig;ten derartigen experimentellen Studie (120 verschiedene Konfigurationen, 671280 Ausf&uuml;hrungen) evaluiert. Hierzu wird ein Benchmarking-System pr&auml;sentiert, das mit Hilfe moderner Technologien signifikante qualitative Messfehler existierender Systeme vermeidet.}, keyword = {Benchmarking,CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a German summary of the dissertation <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2017.complete.html#PhilippPredicateAnalysis">Towards Practical Predicate Analysis</a>.}, doifalse = {20.500.12116/19476}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/19476}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a German summary of the dissertation Towards Practical Predicate Analysis.
12. Dirk Beyer, Rolf Hennicker, Martin Hofmann, Tobias Nipkow, and Martin Wirsing. Software-Verifikation. In A. Bode, M. Broy, H.-J. Bungartz, and F. Matthes, editors, 50 Jahre Universitäts-Informatik in München, pages 75-86, 2017. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54712-0_5 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @incollection{InfMUC17, author = {Dirk Beyer and Rolf Hennicker and Martin Hofmann and Tobias Nipkow and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Software-Verifikation}, booktitle = {50 Jahre Universit{\"a}ts-Informatik in M{\"u}nchen}, editor = {A.~Bode and M.~Broy and H.-J.~Bungartz and F.~Matthes}, pages = {75-86}, year = {2017}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-662-54711-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54712-0_5}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-50JahreInfMUC.Software-Verifikation.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
13. Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer. BDD-Based Software Verification: Applications to Event-Condition-Action Systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 16(5):507-518, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @article{STTT14-BDD, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {{BDD}-Based Software Verification: Applications to Event-Condition-Action Systems}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {16}, number = {5}, pages = {507--518}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2014-STTT.BDD-Based_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
14. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. The Software Model Checker Blast: Applications to Software Engineering. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 9(5-6):505-525, 2007. doi:10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z Invited to special issue of selected papers from FASE 2004/05 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Abstract

    BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, BLAST either statically proves that the program satisfies the safety property, or provides an execution path that exhibits a violation of the property (or, since the problem is undecidable, does not terminate). BLAST constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. This paper gives an introduction to BLAST and demonstrates, through two case studies, how it can be applied to program verification and test-case generation. In the first case study, we use BLAST to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We use CCured, a type-based memory-safety analyzer, to annotate a program with run-time assertions that check for safe memory operations. Then, we use BLAST to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate execution scenarios that violate the assertions for the remaining run-time checks. In our second case study, we use BLAST to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. Given a C program and a target predicate p, BLAST determines the program locations q for which there exists a program execution that reaches q with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that cause such executions. Our experiments show that BLAST can provide automated, precise, and scalable analysis for C programs.
    BibTeX Entry

    @article{STTT07, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {The Software Model Checker {{\sc Blast}}: Applications to Software Engineering}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {9}, number = {5-6}, pages = {505-525}, year = {2007}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-STTT.The_Software_Model_Checker_BLAST.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2008-05-08_EPFL_BLAST_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, BLAST either statically proves that the program satisfies the safety property, or provides an execution path that exhibits a violation of the property (or, since the problem is undecidable, does not terminate). BLAST constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. This paper gives an introduction to BLAST and demonstrates, through two case studies, how it can be applied to program verification and test-case generation. In the first case study, we use BLAST to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We use CCured, a type-based memory-safety analyzer, to annotate a program with run-time assertions that check for safe memory operations. Then, we use BLAST to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate execution scenarios that violate the assertions for the remaining run-time checks. In our second case study, we use BLAST to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. Given a C program and a target predicate p, BLAST determines the program locations q for which there exists a program execution that reaches q with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that cause such executions. Our experiments show that BLAST can provide automated, precise, and scalable analysis for C programs.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {BLAST is available at: <a href="http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/Blast/"> http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/Blast</a>}, note = {Invited to special issue of selected papers from FASE 2004/05}, }
    Additional Infos

    BLAST is available at: http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/Blast

15. Dirk Beyer, Thomas Lemberger, and Henrik Wachowitz. CPA-Daemon: Mitigating Tool Restarts for Java-Based Verifiers. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA 2024, Kyoto, Japan, October 21-24), LNCS , 2024. Springer. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY PDF
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11147333
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ATVA24, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {{CPA-Daemon}: Mitigating Tool Restarts for Java-Based Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA~2024, Kyoto, Japan, October 21-24)}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-ATVA.CPA-Daemon_Mitigating_Tool_Restart_for_Java-Based_Verifiers.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, artifact = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11147333}, doinone = {Unpublished: Last checked: 2024-10-01}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
16. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification with CPAchecker 3.0: Tutorial and User Guide. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM 2024, Milan, Italy, September 9-13), LNCS 14934, pages 543-570, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71177-0_30 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13612338
    Abstract

    This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, k-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. An extended version also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FM24a, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification with {CPAchecker} 3.0: {Tutorial} and User Guide}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM~2024, Milan, Italy, September 9-13)}, pages = {543-570}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14934}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-71177-0_30}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FM.Software_Verification_with_CPAchecker_3.0_Tutorial_and_User_Guide.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-09-10_FM24_CPAchecker_Tutorial.pdf}, abstract = {This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, <i>k</i>-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. An extended version also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php">https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php</a>.}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#TechReport24c">extended version</a> of this article is available on <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094">arXiv</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13612338}, funding = {DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, }
    Additional Infos

    An extended version of this article is available on arXiv.
17. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 227-247, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_13 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10548594
    Abstract

    Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including k-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SPIN24c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {227-247}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_13}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/imc-df/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Augmenting_Interpolation-Based_Model_Checking_with_Auxiliary_Invariants.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-10_SPIN_Augmenting_IMC_with_Auxiliary_Invariants_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including <i>k</i>-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, annote = {This article received the "Best Paper Award" at SPIN 2024! An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#TechReport24a">extended version</a> of this article is available on <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821">arXiv</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548594}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
    Additional Infos

    This article received the "Best Paper Award" at SPIN 2024! An extended version of this article is available on arXiv.
18. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Kettl, and Thomas Lemberger. Fault Localization on Verification Witnesses. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 205-224, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_12 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10794627
    Abstract

    When verifiers report an alarm, they export a violation witness (exchangeable counterexample) that helps validate the reachability of that alarm. Conventional wisdom says that this violation witness should be very precise: the ideal witness describes a single error path for the validator to check. But we claim that verifiers overshoot and produce large witnesses with information that makes validation unnecessarily difficult. To check our hypothesis, we reduce violation witnesses to that information that automated fault-localization approaches deem relevant for triggering the reported alarm in the program. We perform a large experimental evaluation on the witnesses produced in the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2023). It shows that our reduction shrinks the witnesses considerably and enables the confirmation of verification results that were not confirmable before.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SPIN24b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Fault Localization on Verification Witnesses}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {205-224}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_12}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Fault_Localization_on_Verification_Witnesses.pdf}, abstract = {When verifiers report an alarm, they export a violation witness (exchangeable counterexample) that helps validate the reachability of that alarm. Conventional wisdom says that this violation witness should be very precise: the ideal witness describes a single error path for the validator to check. But we claim that verifiers overshoot and produce large witnesses with information that makes validation unnecessarily difficult. To check our hypothesis, we reduce violation witnesses to that information that automated fault-localization approaches deem relevant for triggering the reported alarm in the program. We perform a large experimental evaluation on the witnesses produced in the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2023). It shows that our reduction shrinks the witnesses considerably and enables the confirmation of verification results that were not confirmable before.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker}, annote = {Nominated for best paper.<br> This work was also presented with a poster at the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14-20): <a href="https://sosy-lab.org/research/pst/2024-03-05_ICSE24_Fault_Localization_on_Verification_Witnesses_Poster.pdf">Extended Abstract</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10794627}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-IDEFIX,DFG-COOP}, }
    Additional Infos

    Nominated for best paper.
    This work was also presented with a poster at the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14-20): Extended Abstract.
19. Paulína Ayaziová, Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Martin Spiessl, and Jan Strejček. Software Verification Witnesses 2.0. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 184-203, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_11 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main), CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10826204
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SPIN24a, author = {Paulína Ayaziová and Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl and Jan Strejček}, title = {Software Verification Witnesses 2.0}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {184-203}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_11}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/benchmarking/sv-witnesses/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Software_Verification_Witnesses_2.0.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-11_SPIN24_Software-Verification-Witnesses-2.0.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main), CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10826204}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-IDEFIX}, }
20. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Martin Spiessl, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker 2.3 with Strategy Selection (Competition Contribution). In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 14572, pages 359-364, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10203297
    Abstract

    CPAchecker is a versatile framework for software verification, rooted in the established concept of configurable program analysis. Compared to the last published system description at SV-COMP 2015, the CPAchecker submission to SV-COMP 2024 incorporates new analyses for reachability safety, memory safety, termination, overflows, and data races. To combine forces of the available analyses in CPAchecker and cover the full spectrum of the diverse program characteristics and specifications in the competition, we use strategy selection to predict a sequential portfolio of analyses that is suitable for a given verification task. The prediction is guided by a set of carefully picked program features. The sequential portfolios are composed based on expert knowledge and consist of bit-precise analyses using k-induction, data-flow analysis, SMT solving, Craig interpolation, lazy abstraction, and block-abstraction memoization. The synergy of various algorithms in CPAchecker enables support for all properties and categories of C programs in SV-COMP 2024 and contributes to its success in many categories. CPAchecker also generates verification witnesses in the new YAML format.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS24c, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {{CPAchecker} 2.3 with Strategy Selection (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part~3}, pages = {359-364}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/}, abstract = {CPAchecker is a versatile framework for software verification, rooted in the established concept of configurable program analysis. Compared to the last published system description at SV-COMP 2015, the CPAchecker submission to SV-COMP 2024 incorporates new analyses for reachability safety, memory safety, termination, overflows, and data races. To combine forces of the available analyses in CPAchecker and cover the full spectrum of the diverse program characteristics and specifications in the competition, we use strategy selection to predict a sequential portfolio of analyses that is suitable for a given verification task. The prediction is guided by a set of carefully picked program features. The sequential portfolios are composed based on expert knowledge and consist of bit-precise analyses using <i>k</i>-induction, data-flow analysis, SMT solving, Craig interpolation, lazy abstraction, and block-abstraction memoization. The synergy of various algorithms in CPAchecker enables support for all properties and categories of C programs in SV-COMP 2024 and contributes to its success in many categories. CPAchecker also generates verification witnesses in the new YAML format.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.CPAchecker_2.3_with_Strategy_Selection_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10203297}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, }
21. Dirk Beyer. State of the Art in Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2024. In B. Finkbeiner and L. Kovács, editors, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 14572, pages 299-329, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS24b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {State of the Art in Software Verification and Witness Validation: {SV-COMP 2024}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part~3}, editor = {B.~Finkbeiner and L.~Kovács}, pages = {299-329}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2024/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.State_of_the_Art_in_Software_Verification_and_Witness_Validation_SV-COMP_2024.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
22. Zsófia Ádám, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Nian-Ze Lee, and Nils Sirrenberg. Btor2-Cert: A Certifying Hardware-Verification Framework Using Software Analyzers. In Proc. TACAS (3), LNCS 14572, pages 129-149, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_7 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10548597
    Abstract

    Formal verification is essential but challenging: Even the best verifiers may produce wrong verification verdicts. Certifying verifiers enhance the confidence in verification results by generating a witness for other tools to validate the verdict independently. Recently, translating the hardware-modeling language Btor2 to software, such as the programming language C or LLVM intermediate representation, has been actively studied and facilitated verifying hardware designs by software analyzers. However, it remained unknown whether witnesses produced by software verifiers contain helpful information about the original circuits and how such information can aid hardware analysis. We propose a certifying and validating framework Btor2-Cert to verify safety properties of Btor2 circuits, combining Btor2-to-C translation, software verifiers, and a new witness validator Btor2-Val, to answer the above open questions. Btor2-Cert translates a software violation witness to a Btor2 violation witness; As the Btor2 language lacks a format for correctness witnesses, we encode invariants in software correctness witnesses as Btor2 circuits. The validator Btor2-Val checks violation witnesses by circuit simulation and correctness witnesses by validation via verification. In our evaluation, Btor2-Cert successfully utilized software witnesses to improve quality assurance of hardware. By invoking the software verifier CBMC on translated programs, it uniquely solved, with confirmed witnesses, 8% of the unsafe tasks for which the hardware verifier ABC failed to detect bugs.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS24a, author = {Zsófia Ádám and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee and Nils Sirrenberg}, title = {{Btor2-Cert}: {A} Certifying Hardware-Verification Framework Using Software Analyzers}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS~(3)}, pages = {129-149}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_7}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/btor2-cert/}, abstract = {Formal verification is essential but challenging: Even the best verifiers may produce wrong verification verdicts. Certifying verifiers enhance the confidence in verification results by generating a witness for other tools to validate the verdict independently. Recently, translating the hardware-modeling language Btor2 to software, such as the programming language C or LLVM intermediate representation, has been actively studied and facilitated verifying hardware designs by software analyzers. However, it remained unknown whether witnesses produced by software verifiers contain helpful information about the original circuits and how such information can aid hardware analysis. We propose a certifying and validating framework Btor2-Cert to verify safety properties of Btor2 circuits, combining Btor2-to-C translation, software verifiers, and a new witness validator Btor2-Val, to answer the above open questions. Btor2-Cert translates a software violation witness to a Btor2 violation witness; As the Btor2 language lacks a format for correctness witnesses, we encode invariants in software correctness witnesses as Btor2 circuits. The validator Btor2-Val checks violation witnesses by circuit simulation and correctness witnesses by validation via verification. In our evaluation, Btor2-Cert successfully utilized software witnesses to improve quality assurance of hardware. By invoking the software verifier CBMC on translated programs, it uniquely solved, with confirmed witnesses, 8&percnt; of the unsafe tasks for which the hardware verifier ABC failed to detect bugs.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.Btor2-Cert_A_Certifying_Hardware-Verification_Framework_Using_Software_Analyzers.pdf}, annote = {The reproduction package of this article received the "Distinguished Artifact Award" at TACAS 2024!}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548597}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
    Additional Infos

    The reproduction package of this article received the "Distinguished Artifact Award" at TACAS 2024!
23. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Ranged Program Analysis: A Parallel Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Software Verification. In Software Engineering 2024, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, Linz, Austria, February 26 - March 1, 2024, LNI P-343, pages 157-158, 2024. GI. doi:10.18420/SW2024_52 Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{JakobsSE2024, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Ranged Program Analysis: A Parallel Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Software Verification}, booktitle = {Software Engineering 2024, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, Linz, Austria, February 26 - March 1, 2024}, pages = {157-158}, year = {2024}, series = {{LNI}~{P-343}}, publisher = {GI}, doi = {10.18420/SW2024_52}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {}, }
24. Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz. CoVeriTeam GUI: A No-Code Approach to Cooperative Software Verification. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2024, Sacramento, CA, USA, October 27-November 1), pages 2419-2422, 2024. doi:10.1145/3691620.3695366 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13757771
    Abstract

    We present CoVeriTeam GUI, a No-Code web frontend to compose new software-verification workflows from existing analysis techniques. Verification approaches stopped relying on single techniques years ago, and instead combine selections that complement each other well. So far, such combinations were-under high implementation and maintenance cost-glued together with proprietary code. Now, CoVeriTeam GUI enables users to build new verification workflows without programming. Verification techniques can be combined through various composition operators in a drag-and-drop fashion directly in the browser, and an integration with a remote service allows to execute the built workflows with the click of a button. CoVeriTeam GUI is available open source under Apache 2.0: https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui
    Demonstration video: https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CoVeriTeamGUI-ASE24, author = {Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {CoVeriTeam GUI: A No-Code Approach to Cooperative Software Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2024, Sacramento, CA, USA, October 27-November 1)}, pages = {2419-2422}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1145/3691620.3695366}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-ASE24.CoVeriTeam_GUI_A_No-Code_Approach_to_Cooperative_Software_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {}, abstract = {We present CoVeriTeam GUI, a No-Code web frontend to compose new software-verification workflows from existing analysis techniques. Verification approaches stopped relying on single techniques years ago, and instead combine selections that complement each other well. So far, such combinations were---under high implementation and maintenance cost---glued together with proprietary code. Now, CoVeriTeam GUI enables users to build new verification workflows without programming. Verification techniques can be combined through various composition operators in a drag-and-drop fashion directly in the browser, and an integration with a remote service allows to execute the built workflows with the click of a button. CoVeriTeam GUI is available open source under Apache 2.0: <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui">https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui</a><br> Demonstration video: <a href="https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA">https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA</a>}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13757771}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
25. Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee. CPV: A Circuit-Based Program Verifier (Competition Contribution). In Proc. TACAS, LNCS 14572, pages 365-370, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_22 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10203472
    Abstract

    We submit to SV-COMP 2024 CPV, a circuit-based software verifier for C programs. CPV utilizes sequential circuits as its intermediate representation and invokes hardware model checkers to analyze the reachability safety of C programs. As the frontend, it uses Kratos2, a recently proposed verification tool, to translate a C program to a sequential circuit. As the backend, state-of-the-art hardware model checkers ABC and AVR are employed to verify the translated circuits. We configure the hardware model checkers to run various analyses, including IC3/PDR, interpolation-based model checking, and k-induction. Information discovered by hardware model checkers is represented as verification witnesses. In the competition, CPV achieved comparable performance against participants whose intermediate representations are based on control-flow graphs. In the category ReachSafety, it outperformed several mature software verifiers as a first-year participant. CPV manifests the feasibility of sequential circuits as an alternative intermediate representation for program analysis and enables head-to-head algorithmic comparison between hardware and software verification.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPV-TACAS24, author = {Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {CPV: A Circuit-Based Program Verifier (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS}, pages = {365-370}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_22}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/cpv}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.CPV_A_Circuit-Based_Program_Verifier_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-08_SVCOMP_CPV_A_Circuit-Based_Program_Verifier_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {We submit to SV-COMP 2024 CPV, a circuit-based software verifier for C programs. CPV utilizes sequential circuits as its intermediate representation and invokes hardware model checkers to analyze the reachability safety of C programs. As the frontend, it uses Kratos2, a recently proposed verification tool, to translate a C program to a sequential circuit. As the backend, state-of-the-art hardware model checkers ABC and AVR are employed to verify the translated circuits. We configure the hardware model checkers to run various analyses, including IC3/PDR, interpolation-based model checking, and <i>k</i>-induction. Information discovered by hardware model checkers is represented as verification witnesses. In the competition, CPV achieved comparable performance against participants whose intermediate representations are based on control-flow graphs. In the category <i>ReachSafety</i>, it outperformed several mature software verifiers as a first-year participant. CPV manifests the feasibility of sequential circuits as an alternative intermediate representation for program analysis and enables head-to-head algorithmic comparison between hardware and software verification.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10203472}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
26. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. CPA-DF: A Tool for Configurable Interval Analysis to Boost Program Verification. In Proc. ASE, pages 2050-2053, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00213 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8245821
    Abstract

    Software verification is challenging, and auxiliary program invariants are used to improve the effectiveness of verification approaches. For instance, the k-induction implementation in CPAchecker, an award-winning framework for program analysis, uses invariants produced by a configurable data-flow analysis to strengthen induction hypotheses. This invariant generator, CPA-DF, uses arithmetic expressions over intervals as its abstract domain and is able to prove some safe verification tasks alone. After extensively evaluating CPA-DF on SV-Benchmarks, the largest publicly available suite of C safety-verification tasks, we discover that its potential as a stand-alone analysis or a sub-analysis in a parallel portfolio for combined verification approaches has been significantly underestimated: (1) As a stand-alone analysis, CPA-DF finds almost as many proofs as the plain k-induction implementation without auxiliary invariants. (2) As a sub-analysis running in parallel to the plain k-induction implementation, CPA-DF boosts the portfolio verifier to solve a comparable amount of tasks as the heavily-optimized k-induction implementation with invariant injection. Our detailed analysis reveals that dynamic precision adjustment is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of CPA-DF. To generalize our results beyond CPAchecker, we use CoVeriTeam, a platform for cooperative verification, to compose three portfolio verifiers that execute CPA-DF and three other software verifiers in parallel, respectively. Surprisingly, running CPA-DF merely in parallel to these state-of-the-art tools further boosts the number of correct results up to more than 20%.
    Demonstration video: https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ASE23a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {{CPA-DF}: {A} Tool for Configurable Interval Analysis to Boost Program Verification}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2050-2053}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00213}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-df/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.CPA-DF_A_Tool_for_Configurable_Interval_Analysis_to_Boost_Program_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-09-13_ASE_CPA-DF_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Software verification is challenging, and auxiliary program invariants are used to improve the effectiveness of verification approaches. For instance, the <i>k</i>-induction implementation in <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/">CPAchecker</a>, an award-winning framework for program analysis, uses invariants produced by a configurable data-flow analysis to strengthen induction hypotheses. This invariant generator, CPA-DF, uses arithmetic expressions over intervals as its abstract domain and is able to prove some safe verification tasks alone. After extensively evaluating CPA-DF on <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/benchmarking/sv-benchmarks">SV-Benchmarks</a>, the largest publicly available suite of C safety-verification tasks, we discover that its potential as a stand-alone analysis or a sub-analysis in a parallel portfolio for combined verification approaches has been significantly underestimated: (1) As a stand-alone analysis, CPA-DF finds almost as many proofs as the plain <i>k</i>-induction implementation without auxiliary invariants. (2) As a sub-analysis running in parallel to the plain <i>k</i>-induction implementation, CPA-DF boosts the portfolio verifier to solve a comparable amount of tasks as the heavily-optimized <i>k</i>-induction implementation with invariant injection. Our detailed analysis reveals that dynamic precision adjustment is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of CPA-DF. To generalize our results beyond CPAchecker, we use <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam">CoVeriTeam</a>, a platform for cooperative verification, to compose three portfolio verifiers that execute CPA-DF and three other software verifiers in parallel, respectively. Surprisingly, running CPA-DF merely in parallel to these state-of-the-art tools further boosts the number of correct results up to more than 20&percnt;. <br> Demonstration video: <a href="https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4">https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4</a>}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8245821}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4}, }
27. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. LIV: Invariant Validation using Straight-Line Programs. In Proc. ASE, pages 2074-2077, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00214 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8289101
    Abstract

    Validation of correctness proofs is an established procedure in software verification. While there are steady advances when it comes to verification of more and more complex software systems, it becomes increasingly hard to determine which information is actually useful for validation of the correctness proof. Usually, the central piece that verifiers struggle to come up with are good loop invariants. While a proof using inductive invariants is easy to validate, not all invariants used by verifiers necessarily are inductive. In order to alleviate this problem, we propose LIV, an approach that makes it easy to check if the invariant information provided by the verifier is sufficient to establish an inductive proof. This is done by emulating a Hoare-style proof, splitting the program into Hoare triples and converting these into verification tasks that can themselves be efficiently verified by an off-the-shelf verifier. In case the validation fails, useful information about the failure reason can be extracted from the overview of which triples could be established and which were refuted. We show that our approach works by evaluating it on a state-of-the-art benchmark set.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ASE23b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {{LIV}: {Invariant} Validation using Straight-Line Programs}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2074-2077}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00214}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/liv}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.LIV_Loop-Invariant_Validation_using_Straight-Line_Programs.pdf}, abstract = {Validation of correctness proofs is an established procedure in software verification. While there are steady advances when it comes to verification of more and more complex software systems, it becomes increasingly hard to determine which information is actually useful for validation of the correctness proof. Usually, the central piece that verifiers struggle to come up with are good loop invariants. While a proof using inductive invariants is easy to validate, not all invariants used by verifiers necessarily are inductive. In order to alleviate this problem, we propose LIV, an approach that makes it easy to check if the invariant information provided by the verifier is sufficient to establish an inductive proof. This is done by emulating a Hoare-style proof, splitting the program into Hoare triples and converting these into verification tasks that can themselves be efficiently verified by an off-the-shelf verifier. In case the validation fails, useful information about the failure reason can be extracted from the overview of which triples could be established and which were refuted. We show that our approach works by evaluating it on a state-of-the-art benchmark set.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8289101}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/mZhoGAa08Rk}, }
28. Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, and Martin Spiessl. CEGAR-PT: A Tool for Abstraction by Program Transformation. In Proc. ASE, pages 2078-2081, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00215 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8287183
    Abstract

    Abstraction is a key technology for proving the correctness of computer programs. There are many approaches available, but unfortunately, the various techniques are difficult to combine and the successful techniques have to be re-implemented again and again.
    We address this problem by using the tool CEGAR-PT, which views abstraction as program transformation and integrates different verification components off-the-shelf. The idea is to use existing components without having to change their implementation, while still adjusting the precision of the abstraction using the successful CEGAR approach. The approach is largely general: it only restricts the abstraction to transform, given a precision that defines the level of abstraction, one program into another program. The abstraction by program transformation can over-approximate the data flow (e.g., havoc some variables, use more abstract types) or the control flow (e.g., loop abstraction, slicing).
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ASE23c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl}, title = {{CEGAR-PT}: {A} Tool for Abstraction by Program Transformation}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2078-2081}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00215}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cegar-pt}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.CEGAR-PT_A_Tool_for_Abstraction_by_Program_Transformation.pdf}, abstract = {Abstraction is a key technology for proving the correctness of computer programs. There are many approaches available, but unfortunately, the various techniques are difficult to combine and the successful techniques have to be re-implemented again and again. <br> We address this problem by using the tool CEGAR-PT, which views abstraction as program transformation and integrates different verification components off-the-shelf. The idea is to use existing components without having to change their implementation, while still adjusting the precision of the abstraction using the successful CEGAR approach. The approach is largely general: it only restricts the abstraction to transform, given a precision that defines the level of abstraction, one program into another program. The abstraction by program transformation can over-approximate the data flow (e.g., havoc some variables, use more abstract types) or the control flow (e.g., loop abstraction, slicing).}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8287183}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/ASZ6hoq8asE}, }
29. Dirk Beyer, Sudeep Kanav, and Henrik Wachowitz. CoVeriTeam Service: Verification as a Service. In Proc. ICSE, pages 21-25, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00017 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Incremental Verification, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7276532
    Abstract

    The research community has developed numerous tools for solving verification problems, but we are missing a common interface for executing them. This means users have to spend considerable effort on the installation and parameter setup, for each new tool (version) they want to execute. The situation could make a verification researcher wanting to experiment with a new verification tool turn away from it. We aim to make it easier for users to execute verification tools, as well as provide mechanism for tool developers to make their tools easily accessible. Our solution combines a web service and a common interface for verification tools. The presented service has been used during the 2023 competitions on software verification and testing, for integration testing. As another use- case, we developed a service for incremental verification on top of the CoVeriTeam Service and demonstrate its use in a continuous-integration process.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ICSE23, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {{CoVeriTeam Service}: {Verification} as a Service}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ICSE}, pages = {21-25}, year = {2023}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00017}, url = {https://coveriteam-service.sosy-lab.org/static/index.html}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ICSE.CoVeriTeam_Service_Verification_as_a_Service.pdf}, abstract = {The research community has developed numerous tools for solving verification problems, but we are missing a common interface for executing them. This means users have to spend considerable effort on the installation and parameter setup, for each new tool (version) they want to execute. The situation could make a verification researcher wanting to experiment with a new verification tool turn away from it. We aim to make it easier for users to execute verification tools, as well as provide mechanism for tool developers to make their tools easily accessible. Our solution combines a web service and a common interface for verification tools. The presented service has been used during the 2023 competitions on software verification and testing, for integration testing. As another use- case, we developed a service for incremental verification on top of the {CoVeriTeam} Service and demonstrate its use in a continuous-integration process.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Incremental Verification,Cooperative Verification}, _sha256 = {604dd391b6a49e46e97b6faafbb3cc331ccf5c04e3d364cf1e76a2c99c1c267f}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.7276532}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-COOP}, }
30. Dirk Beyer. Competition on Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2023. In S. Sankaranarayanan and N. Sharygina, editors, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2023, Paris, France, April 22-27), LNCS 13994, pages 495-522, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS23b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Competition on Software Verification and Witness Validation: {SV-COMP 2023}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2023, Paris, France, April 22-27)}, editor = {S. Sankaranarayanan and N. Sharygina}, pages = {495--522}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13994}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29}, sha256 = {1d35ae38d4e87c267ccc34cba880994b6f6a7927491ec13ba3cc548a29e81e5c}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2023/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-TACAS.Competition_on_Software_Verification_and_Witness_Validation_SV-COMP_2023.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
31. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Bridging Hardware and Software Analysis with Btor2C: A Word-Level-Circuit-to-C Translator. In Proc. TACAS, LNCS 13994, pages 152-172, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_12 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7551707
    Abstract

    Across the broad field for the analysis of computational systems, research endeavors are often categorized by the respective models under investigation. Algorithms and tools are usually developed for a specific model, hindering their applications to similar problems originating from other computational systems. A prominent example of such situation is the studies on formal verification and testing for hardware and software systems. The two research communities share common theoretical foundations and solving methods, including satisfiability, interpolation, and abstraction refinement. Nevertheless, it is often demanding for one community to benefit from the advancements of the other, as analyzers typically assume a particular input format. To bridge the gap between the hardware and software analysis, we propose Btor2C, a converter from word-level sequential circuits to C programs. We choose the Btor2 language as the input format for its simplicity and bit-precise semantics. It can be deemed as an intermediate representation tailored for analysis. Given a Btor2 circuit, Btor2C generates a behaviorally equivalent program in the C language, supported by most static program analyzers. We demonstrate the use cases of Btor2C by translating the benchmark set from the Hardware Model Checking Competitions into C programs and analyze them by tools from the Competitions on Software Verification and Testing. Our results show that software analyzers can complement hardware verifiers for enhanced quality assurance.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS23a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Bridging Hardware and Software Analysis with {Btor2C}: {A} Word-Level-Circuit-to-{C} Translator}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS}, pages = {152-172}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13994}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_12}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/btor2c/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-04-26_TACAS23_Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Analysis_with_Btor2C_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Across the broad field for the analysis of computational systems, research endeavors are often categorized by the respective models under investigation. Algorithms and tools are usually developed for a specific model, hindering their applications to similar problems originating from other computational systems. A prominent example of such situation is the studies on formal verification and testing for hardware and software systems. The two research communities share common theoretical foundations and solving methods, including satisfiability, interpolation, and abstraction refinement. Nevertheless, it is often demanding for one community to benefit from the advancements of the other, as analyzers typically assume a particular input format. To bridge the gap between the hardware and software analysis, we propose Btor2C, a converter from word-level sequential circuits to C programs. We choose <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_32">the Btor2 language</a> as the input format for its simplicity and bit-precise semantics. It can be deemed as an intermediate representation tailored for analysis. Given a Btor2 circuit, Btor2C generates a behaviorally equivalent program in the C language, supported by most static program analyzers. We demonstrate the use cases of Btor2C by translating the benchmark set from the Hardware Model Checking Competitions into C programs and analyze them by tools from the Competitions on Software Verification and Testing. Our results show that software analyzers can complement hardware verifiers for enhanced quality assurance.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-TACAS.Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Analysis_with_Btor2C_A_Word-Level-Circuit-to-C_Translator.pdf}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.7551707}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
32. Dirk Beyer, Jan Haltermann, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Component-based CEGAR - Building Software Verifiers from Off-the-Shelf Components. In G. Engels, R. Hebig, and M. Tichy, editors, Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn, LNI P-332, pages 37-38, 2023. GI. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE23, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Haltermann and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Component-based {CEGAR} - Building Software Verifiers from Off-the-Shelf Components}, booktitle = {Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn}, editor = {G.~Engels and R.~Hebig and M.~Tichy}, pages = {37--38}, year = {2023}, series = {{LNI}~P-332}, publisher = {{GI}}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-SE.Component-based_CEGAR_Building_Software_Verifiers_from_Off-the-Shelf_Components.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2022.html#ICSE22">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2022.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, isbnnote = {978-3-88579-726-5}, urlpub = {https://dspace.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/40128}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2022.
33. Marie-Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt. diffDP: Using Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions. In Proc. iFM, LNCS 14300, pages 40-61, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47705-8_3 Keyword(s): Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8272913
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{diffDP, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt}, title = {diffDP: Using Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions}, booktitle = {Proc.\ iFM}, pages = {40-61}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~14300}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-47705-8_3}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8272913}, funding = {Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX}, }
34. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Ranged Program Analysis via Instrumentation. In Proc. SEFM, LNCS 14323, pages 145-164, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47115-5_9 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Ranged Program Analysis, Program Instrumentation Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8065229
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{RangedPAwithInstrumentation, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Ranged Program Analysis via Instrumentation}, booktitle = {Proc.\ SEFM}, pages = {145-164}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~14323}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-47115-5_9}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Ranged Program Analysis, Program Instrumentation}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8065229}, funding = {}, }
35. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Parallel Program Analysis via Range Splitting. In Proc. FASE, LNCS 13991, pages 195-219, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_11 Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{RangedPA-CPA, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Parallel Program Analysis via Range Splitting}, booktitle = {Proc.\ {FASE}}, pages = {195--219}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13991}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_11}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
36. Dirk Beyer and Andreas Podelski. Software Model Checking: 20 Years and Beyond. In Principles of Systems Design, LNCS 13660, pages 554-582, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22337-2_27 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{Henzinger22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Podelski}, title = {Software Model Checking: 20 Years and Beyond}, booktitle = {Principles of Systems Design}, pages = {554-582}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13660}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-22337-2_27}, sha256 = {87a441617d1194266dff5fd5bd143370e9b318e72848b2d6e3c49f152a136799}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {}, editors = {J-F.~Raskin and K.~Chatterjee and L.~Doyen and R.~Majumdar}, funding = {}, }
37. Dirk Beyer and Jan Strejček. Case Study on Verification-Witness Validators: Where We Are and Where We Go. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Static Analysis, (SAS 2022, Auckland, New Zealand, December 5-7, 2022), LNCS 13790, pages 160-174, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22308-2_8 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SAS22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Strejček}, title = {Case Study on Verification-Witness Validators: Where We Are and Where We Go}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Static Analysis, (SAS~2022, Auckland, New Zealand, December 5-7, 2022)}, pages = {160-174}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13790}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-22308-2_8}, sha256 = {8003de86c73be27da528c44f440a49cd03a877649c9cb61a328a37507bc963da}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {}, editors = {Gagandeep Singh and Caterina Urban}, funding = {}, }
38. Stefan Winter, Christopher Steven Timperley, Ben Hermann, Jürgen Cito, Jonathan Bell, Michael Hilton, and Dirk Beyer. A Retrospective Study of One Decade of Artifact Evaluations. In Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim, editors, Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, pages 145-156, 2022. ACM. doi:10.1145/3540250.3549172 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FSE22, author = {Stefan Winter and Christopher Steven Timperley and Ben Hermann and Jürgen Cito and Jonathan Bell and Michael Hilton and Dirk Beyer}, title = {A Retrospective Study of One Decade of Artifact Evaluations}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th {ACM} Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18}, editor = {Abhik Roychoudhury and Cristian Cadar and Miryung Kim}, pages = {145-156}, year = {2022}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3540250.3549172}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {5ad5c04b173c8c68f651b955545d44a7d74c0cf497b2c7ec988768d7459e26b4}, funding = {}, }
39. Dirk Beyer, Martin Spiessl, and Sven Umbricht. Cooperation between Automatic and Interactive Software Verifiers. In Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM 2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30, LNCS 13550, pages 111–128, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_7 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SEFM22b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl and Sven Umbricht}, title = {Cooperation between Automatic and Interactive Software Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM~2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30}, editor = {Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai}, pages = {111–128}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13550}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_7}, sha256 = {a310ff0ac97f37ee817c6f05a4cc9a635cbacd09ad301b483095f133040e8e48}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-SEFM.Cooperation_between_Automatic_and_Interactive_Software_Verifiers.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
40. Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch Rosenfeld, and Martin Spiessl. A Unifying Approach for Control-Flow-Based Loop Abstraction. In Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM 2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30, LNCS 13550, pages 3-19, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_1 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SEFM22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl}, title = {A Unifying Approach for Control-Flow-Based Loop Abstraction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM~2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30}, editor = {Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai}, pages = {3-19}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13550}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_1}, sha256 = {047a8a9062e143741623320cf80ec963ce5f7200a5a75d263fa6615c12f2199e}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-SEFM.A_Unifying_Approach_for_Control-Flow-Based_Loop_Abstraction.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
41. Dirk Beyer, Jan Haltermann, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Decomposing Software Verification into Off-the-Shelf Components: An Application to CEGAR. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 8-20 (Virtual), May 22-27 (In-Person)), pages 536-548, 2022. ACM. doi:10.1145/3510003.3510064 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Interfaces for Component-Based Design Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5301636
    Abstract

    Techniques for software verification are typically realized as cohesive units of software with tightly coupled components. This makes it difficult to re-use components, and the potential for workload distribution is limited. Innovations in software verification might find their way into practice faster if provided in smaller, more specialized components. In this paper, we propose to strictly decompose software verification: the verification task is split into independent subtasks, implemented by only loosely coupled components communicating via clearly defined interfaces. We apply this decomposition concept to one of the most frequently employed techniques in software verification: counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). CEGAR is a technique to iteratively compute an abstract model of the system. We develop a decomposition of CEGAR into independent components with clearly defined interfaces that are based on existing, standardized exchange formats. Its realization component-based CEGAR (C-CEGAR) concerns the three core tasks of CEGAR: abstract-model exploration, feasibility check, and precision refinement. We experimentally show that - despite the necessity of exchanging complex data via interfaces - the efficiency thereby only reduces by a small constant factor while the precision in solving verification tasks even increases. We furthermore illustrate the advantages of C-CEGAR by experimenting with different implementations of components, thereby further increasing the overall effectiveness and testing that substitution of components works well.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ICSE22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Haltermann and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Decomposing Software Verification into Off-the-Shelf Components: An Application to {CEGAR}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 8-20 (Virtual), May 22-27 (In-Person))}, pages = {536-548}, year = {2022}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3510003.3510064}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/component-based-cegar/}, abstract = {Techniques for software verification are typically realized as cohesive units of software with tightly coupled components. This makes it difficult to re-use components, and the potential for workload distribution is limited. Innovations in software verification might find their way into practice faster if provided in smaller, more specialized components. In this paper, we propose to strictly decompose software verification: the verification task is split into independent subtasks, implemented by only loosely coupled components communicating via clearly defined interfaces. We apply this decomposition concept to one of the most frequently employed techniques in software verification: counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). CEGAR is a technique to iteratively compute an abstract model of the system. We develop a decomposition of CEGAR into independent components with clearly defined interfaces that are based on existing, standardized exchange formats. Its realization component-based CEGAR (C-CEGAR) concerns the three core tasks of CEGAR: abstract-model exploration, feasibility check, and precision refinement. We experimentally show that --- despite the necessity of exchanging complex data via interfaces --- the efficiency thereby only reduces by a small constant factor while the precision in solving verification tasks even increases. We furthermore illustrate the advantages of C-CEGAR by experimenting with different implementations of components, thereby further increasing the overall effectiveness and testing that substitution of components works well.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Interfaces for Component-Based Design}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-ICSE.Decomposing_Software_Verification_into_Off-the-Shelf-Components.pdf}, _sha256 = {be1c5d744475af00f5a0cddd51d92353296d1d8e5ba60f5439ba5b98217e0e03}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.5301636}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
42. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. The Static Analyzer Frama-C in SV-COMP (Competition Contribution). In Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13244, pages 429-434, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_26 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS22c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {The Static Analyzer {Frama-C} in {SV-COMP} (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu}, pages = {429--434}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13244}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_26}, sha256 = {77ed425c2b30a4f9424ed46c9cb5a846f5c21677ececdbf098e30f37aca67a3d}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TACAS.The_Static_Analyzer_Frama-C_in_SV-COMP_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
43. Dirk Beyer. Progress on Software Verification: SV-COMP 2022. In D. Fisman and G. Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13244, pages 375-402, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS22b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Progress on Software Verification: {SV-COMP 2022}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {D.~Fisman and G.~Rosu}, pages = {375-402}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13244}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20}, sha256 = {88d2b7552d79ad77c4e000f83a18f9d71038f7ddfca6c0f0700644405a115943}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TACAS.Progress_on_Software_Verification_SV-COMP_2022.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
44. Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav. CoVeriTeam: On-Demand Composition of Cooperative Verification Systems. In D. Fisman and G. Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13243, pages 561-579, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_31 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav}, title = {{CoVeriTeam}: {O}n-Demand Composition of Cooperative Verification Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {D.~Fisman and G.~Rosu}, pages = {561-579}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13243}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_31}, sha256 = {e38311ae071351301b08d16849ee309a86efdc07fc45e18e466b4735ef21f241}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coveriteam/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-04-06_TACAS22_CoVeriTeam_Sudeep.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
45. Dirk Beyer, Sudeep Kanav, and Cedric Richter. Construction of Verifier Combinations Based on Off-the-Shelf Verifiers. In E. B. Johnsen and M. Wimmer, editors, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7), LNCS 13241, pages 49-70, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FASE22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav and Cedric Richter}, title = {Construction of Verifier Combinations Based on Off-the-Shelf Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7)}, editor = {E.~B.~Johnsen and M.~Wimmer}, pages = {49-70}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13241}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3}, sha256 = {fa50620b5b60e7c8761ea251b3ab30ef1e18320d49d76f417eac6dcd5b4a0bbc}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coveriteam-combinations/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-04-04_FASE22-CoVeriTeam-Combinations_Cedric.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
46. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification: 10th Comparative Evaluation (SV-COMP 2021). In J. F. Groote and K. G. Larsen, editors, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1), part 2, LNCS 12652, pages 401-422, 2021. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_24 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS21, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification: 10th Comparative Evaluation ({SV-COMP 2021})}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1), part 2}, editor = {J.~F.~Groote and K.~G.~Larsen}, pages = {401-422}, year = {2021}, series = {LNCS~12652}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_24}, sha256 = {d78bb586715b0650702665510258d8e53a7bd16ae2a3cc4568b5986527b29051}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2021/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
47. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Domain-Independent Interprocedural Program Analysis using Block-Abstraction Memoization. In P. Devanbu, M. Cohen, and T. Zimmermann, editors, Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2020, Virtual Event, USA, November 8-13), pages 50-62, 2020. ACM. doi:10.1145/3368089.3409718 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4024268
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FSE20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Domain-Independent Interprocedural Program Analysis using Block-Abstraction Memoization}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE~2020, Virtual Event, USA, November 8-13)}, editor = {P.~Devanbu and M.~Cohen and T.~Zimmermann}, pages = {50-62}, year = {2020}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3368089.3409718}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {36dc2a423425ee8bec03f0f4073e04f9121d299cc475e27190828e8276e00cb8}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.4024268}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, fundingid = {378803395}, }
48. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Violation Witnesses and Result Validation for Multi-Threaded Programs. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 449-470, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_26 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISoLA20c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Violation Witnesses and Result Validation for Multi-Threaded Programs}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {449-470}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_26}, sha256 = {65fc5325c4e77a80d8e47f9c0e7f0ac02379bfa15dcd9fb54d6587185b8efd77}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/witnesses-concurrency/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-25_ISOLA21_ValidationMultiThreaded_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
49. Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav. An Interface Theory for Program Verification. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 168-186, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_9 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Interfaces for Component-Based Design Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISoLA20b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav}, title = {An Interface Theory for Program Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {168-186}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_9}, sha256 = {f15159da0e648a25e57c769639c989e68cd3407bfad10db5ee1dc25e1d2fd672}, url = {}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-29_ISOLA21_VerificationInterfaces_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Interfaces for Component-Based Design}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
50. Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim. Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 143-167, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_8 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISoLA20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {143-167}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_8}, sha256 = {86dbfb5ee4875582566bdb5d44750cc935614c11c09627295cc3ff123115a75b}, url = {}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-29_ISOLA21_VerificationArtifacts_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, fundingid = {418257054}, }
51. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, and Thomas Lemberger. Difference Verification with Conditions. In F. d. Boer and A. Cerone, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18), LNCS 12310, pages 133-154, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_8 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Abstract

    Modern software-verification tools need to support development processes that involve frequent changes. Existing approaches for incremental verification hard-code specific verification techniques. Some of the approaches must be tightly intertwined with the development process. To solve this open problem, we present the concept of difference verification with conditions. Difference verification with conditions is independent from any specific verification technique and can be integrated in software projects at any time. It first applies a change analysis that detects which parts of a software were changed between revisions and encodes that information in a condition. Based on this condition, an off-the-shelf verifier is used to verify only those parts of the software that are influenced by the changes. As a proof of concept, we propose a simple, syntax-based change analysis and use difference verification with conditions with three off-the-shelf verifiers. An extensive evaluation shows the competitiveness of difference verification with conditions.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SEFM20b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Difference Verification with Conditions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM~2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18)}, editor = {F.~d.~Boer and A.~Cerone}, pages = {133--154}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12310}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_8}, sha256 = {8e5219da9a998b26f59013c809fbb1db6f92e3f08125fa1bfaacafcfafafef7f}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/difference/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-17_SEFM20_DifferenceVerificationWithConditions_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {Modern software-verification tools need to support development processes that involve frequent changes. Existing approaches for incremental verification hard-code specific verification techniques. Some of the approaches must be tightly intertwined with the development process. To solve this open problem, we present the concept of difference verification with conditions. Difference verification with conditions is independent from any specific verification technique and can be integrated in software projects at any time. It first applies a change analysis that detects which parts of a software were changed between revisions and encodes that information in a condition. Based on this condition, an off-the-shelf verifier is used to verify only those parts of the software that are influenced by the changes. As a proof of concept, we propose a simple, syntax-based change analysis and use difference verification with conditions with three off-the-shelf verifiers. An extensive evaluation shows the competitiveness of difference verification with conditions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP,DFG-CONVEY}, isbnnote = {}, video = {https://youtu.be/dG02602c9oo}, }
52. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. FRed: Conditional Model Checking via Reducers and Folders. In F. d. Boer and A. Cerone, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18), LNCS 12310, pages 113-132, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_7 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SEFM20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {{{\sc FRed}}: {C}onditional Model Checking via Reducers and Folders}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM~2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18)}, editor = {F.~d.~Boer and A.~Cerone}, pages = {113--132}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12310}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_7}, sha256 = {0ce35cbde24d7a9de0513b89f23a81147bf4f8d5880effd57742c7f195e0eeec}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/fred/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, isbnnote = {}, }
53. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. MetaVal: Witness Validation via Verification. In S. K. Lahiri and C. Wang, editors, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2020, Virtual, USA, July 21-24), part 2, LNCS 12225, pages 165-177, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8_10 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CAV20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {MetaVal: {W}itness Validation via Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2020, Virtual, USA, July 21-24), part 2}, editor = {S.~K.~Lahiri and C.~Wang}, pages = {165-177}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12225}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8_10}, sha256 = {7431085a248c7e2cab70318096622ff19ce1124067158d08866d3f9b250df44e}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/metaval}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, isbnnote = {978-3-030-53290-1}, }
54. Dirk Beyer. Advances in Automatic Software Verification: SV-COMP 2020. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2, LNCS 12079, pages 347-367, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_21 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)

    1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3633334
    2. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3630205
    3. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3630188
    4. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3574420
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS20c, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Advances in Automatic Software Verification: {SV-COMP 2020}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2}, pages = {347-367}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12079}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_21}, sha256 = {2a0cc56934c8fb6d100039b527e8c09f421ca351e4c90ec531aa2accb04504c6}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2020/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, artifact1 = {10.5281/zenodo.3633334}, artifact2 = {10.5281/zenodo.3630205}, artifact3 = {10.5281/zenodo.3630188}, artifact4 = {10.5281/zenodo.3574420}, }
55. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Software Verification with PDR: An Implementation of the State of the Art. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 1, LNCS 12078, pages 3-21, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Software Verification with {PDR}: An Implementation of the State of the Art}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 1}, pages = {3-21}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12078}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1}, sha256 = {fbd54433b42cb4411ddf6d73eb198507a6d35d8b6581b000be30aed84633e204}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pdr-compare/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-03-31_TACAS20_PDR-for-Software_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,CPAchecker}, video = {https://youtu.be/Wxqd92sdHBE}, }
56. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Cooperative Test-Case Generation with Verifiers. In M. Felderer, W. Hasselbring, R. Rabiser, and R. Jung, editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering (SE 2020, Innsbruck, Austria, February 24-28), LNI P-300, pages 107-108, 2020. GI. doi:10.18420/SE2020_31 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Cooperative Test-Case Generation with Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering (SE~2020, Innsbruck, Austria, February 24-28)}, editor = {M.~Felderer and W.~Hasselbring and R.~Rabiser and R.~Jung}, pages = {107--108}, year = {2020}, series = {{LNI}~P-300}, publisher = {{GI}}, doi = {10.18420/SE2020_31}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2019.html#FASE19">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2019.}, isbnnote = {978-3-88579-694-7}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2019.
57. Dirk Beyer. Automatic Verification of C and Java Programs: SV-COMP 2019. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 11429, pages 133-155, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_9 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS19b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Automatic Verification of {C} and Java Programs: {SV-COMP} 2019}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3}, pages = {133-155}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11429}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_9}, sha256 = {3ded73753689c5a68001ad42c27c2a0071f0d13546ffb8c4780891a16d9cabc7}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2019/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, }
58. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. CoVeriTest: Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), LNCS 11424, pages 389-408, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_23 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FASE19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {CoVeriTest: Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11)}, pages = {389-408}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11424}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_23}, sha256 = {ee64749fba4796ed79cecfaa500731ef2ac5d5e795770c44b1e7ad358f955398}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coop-testgen/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, }
59. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Combining Verifiers in Conditional Model Checking via Reducers. In S. Becker, I. Bogicevic, G. Herzwurm, and S. Wagner, editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Software Management (SE/SWM 2019, Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22), LNI P-292, pages 151-152, 2019. GI. doi:10.18420/se2019-46 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Abstract

    Software verification received lots of attention in the past two decades. Nonetheless, it remains an extremely difficult problem. Some verification tasks cannot be solved automatically by any of today’s verifiers. To still verify such tasks, one can combine the strengths of different verifiers. A promising approach to create combinations is conditional model checking (CMC). In CMC, the first verifier outputs a condition that describes the parts of the program state space that it successfully verified, and the next verifier uses that condition to steer its exploration towards the unverified state space. Despite the benefits of CMC, only few verifiers can handle conditions. To overcome this problem, we propose an automatic plug-and-play extension for verifiers. Instead of modifying verifiers, we suggest to add a preprocessor: the reducer. The reducer takes the condition and the original program and computes a residual program that encodes the unverified state space in program code. We developed one such reducer and use it to integrate existing verifiers and test-case generators into the CMC process. Our experiments show that we can solve many additional verification tasks with this reducer-based construction.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Combining Verifiers in Conditional Model Checking via Reducers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Software Management (SE/SWM~2019, Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22)}, editor = {S.~Becker and I.~Bogicevic and G.~Herzwurm and S.~Wagner}, pages = {151--152}, year = {2019}, series = {{LNI}~P-292}, publisher = {{GI}}, doi = {10.18420/se2019-46}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-SE.Combining_Verifiers_in_Conditional_Model_Checking_via_Reducers.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-02-22_SE19_CombiningVerifiersInConditionalModelChecking_Marie.pdf}, abstract = {Software verification received lots of attention in the past two decades. Nonetheless, it remains an extremely difficult problem. Some verification tasks cannot be solved automatically by any of today’s verifiers. To still verify such tasks, one can combine the strengths of different verifiers. A promising approach to create combinations is conditional model checking (CMC). In CMC, the first verifier outputs a condition that describes the parts of the program state space that it successfully verified, and the next verifier uses that condition to steer its exploration towards the unverified state space. Despite the benefits of CMC, only few verifiers can handle conditions. To overcome this problem, we propose an automatic plug-and-play extension for verifiers. Instead of modifying verifiers, we suggest to add a preprocessor: the reducer. The reducer takes the condition and the original program and computes a residual program that encodes the unverified state space in program code. We developed one such reducer and use it to integrate existing verifiers and test-case generators into the CMC process. Our experiments show that we can solve many additional verification tasks with this reducer-based construction.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2018.html#ICSE18">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2018.}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2018.
60. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. In-Place vs. Copy-on-Write CEGAR Refinement for Block Summarization with Caching. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2018, Part 2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9), LNCS 11245, pages 197-215, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_14 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, BAM Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    Block summarization is an efficient technique in software verification to decompose a verification problem into separate tasks and to avoid repeated exploration of reusable parts of a program. In order to benefit from abstraction at the same time, block summarization can be combined with counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). This causes the following problem: whenever CEGAR instructs the model checker to refine the abstraction along a path, several block summaries are affected and need to be updated. There exist two different refinement strategies: a destructive in-place approach that modifies the existing block abstractions and a constructive copy-on-write approach that does not change existing data. While the in-place approach is used in the field for several years, our new approach of copy-on-write refinement has the following important advantage: A complete exportable proof of the program is available after the analysis has finished. Due to the benefit from avoiding recomputations of missing information as necessary for in-place updates, the new approach causes almost no computational overhead overall. We perform a large experimental evaluation to compare the new approach with the previous one to show that full proofs can be achieved without overhead.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISoLA18b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {In-Place vs. Copy-on-Write CEGAR Refinement for Block Summarization with Caching}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2018, Part~2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {197-215}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~11245}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bam-cow-refinement/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ISoLA.In-Place_vs_Copy-on-Write_CEGAR_Refinement_for_Block_Summarization_with_Caching.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-11-06_ISoLA18_BAM-CoW-Refinement_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {Block summarization is an efficient technique in software verification to decompose a verification problem into separate tasks and to avoid repeated exploration of reusable parts of a program. In order to benefit from abstraction at the same time, block summarization can be combined with counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). This causes the following problem: whenever CEGAR instructs the model checker to refine the abstraction along a path, several block summaries are affected and need to be updated. There exist two different refinement strategies: a destructive in-place approach that modifies the existing block abstractions and a constructive copy-on-write approach that does not change existing data. While the in-place approach is used in the field for several years, our new approach of copy-on-write refinement has the following important advantage: A complete exportable proof of the program is available after the analysis has finished. Due to the benefit from avoiding recomputations of missing information as necessary for in-place updates, the new approach causes almost no computational overhead overall. We perform a large experimental evaluation to compare the new approach with the previous one to show that full proofs can be achieved without overhead.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,BAM}, }
61. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Strategy Selection for Software Verification Based on Boolean Features: A Simple but Effective Approach. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2018, Part 2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9), LNCS 11245, pages 144-159, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISoLA18a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Strategy Selection for Software Verification Based on Boolean Features: A Simple but Effective Approach}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2018, Part~2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {144-159}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~11245}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ISoLA.Strategy_Selection_for_Software_Verification_Based_on_Boolean_Features.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-11-05_ISoLA18_StrategySelection_Dirk.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
62. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. CPA-SymExec: Efficient Symbolic Execution in CPAchecker. In Marianne Huchard, Christian Kästner, and Gordon Fraser, editors, Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7), pages 900-903, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3238147.3240478 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Abstract

    We present CPA-SymExec, a tool for symbolic execution that is implemented in the open-source, configurable verification framework CPAchecker. Our implementation automatically detects which symbolic facts to track, in order to obtain a small set of constraints that are necessary to decide reachability of a program area of interest. CPA-SymExec is based on abstraction and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), and uses a constraint-interpolation approach to detect symbolic facts. We show that our implementation can better mitigate the path-explosion problem than symbolic execution without abstraction, by comparing the performance to the state-of-the-art Klee-based symbolic-execution engine Symbiotic and to Klee itself. For the experiments we use two kinds of analysis tasks: one for finding an executable path to a specific location of interest (e.g., if a test vector is desired to show that a certain behavior occurs), and one for confirming that no executable path to a specific location exists (e.g., if it is desired to show that a certain behavior never occurs). CPA-SymExec is released under the Apache 2 license and available (inclusive source code) at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org. A demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/qoBHtvPKtnw.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ASE18b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {{CPA-SymExec}: Efficient Symbolic Execution in {CPAchecker}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd {ACM/IEEE} International Conference on Automated Software Engineering ({ASE}~2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7)}, editor = {Marianne Huchard and Christian K{\"{a}}stner and Gordon Fraser}, pages = {900-903}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3238147.3240478}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-symexec-tool/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ASE.CPA-SymExec_Efficient_Symbolic_Execution_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-09-07_ASE18_CPASymExec_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {We present CPA-SymExec, a tool for symbolic execution that is implemented in the open-source, configurable verification framework CPAchecker. Our implementation automatically detects which symbolic facts to track, in order to obtain a small set of constraints that are necessary to decide reachability of a program area of interest. CPA-SymExec is based on abstraction and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), and uses a constraint-interpolation approach to detect symbolic facts. We show that our implementation can better mitigate the path-explosion problem than symbolic execution without abstraction, by comparing the performance to the state-of-the-art Klee-based symbolic-execution engine Symbiotic and to Klee itself. For the experiments we use two kinds of analysis tasks: one for finding an executable path to a specific location of interest (e.g., if a test vector is desired to show that a certain behavior occurs), and one for confirming that no executable path to a specific location exists (e.g., if it is desired to show that a certain behavior never occurs). CPA-SymExec is released under the Apache 2 license and available (inclusive source code) at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org. A demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/qoBHtvPKtnw.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, video = {https://youtu.be/7o7EtpbV8NM}, }
63. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Domain-Independent Multi-threaded Software Model Checking. In Marianne Huchard, Christian Kästner, and Gordon Fraser, editors, Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7, 2018, pages 634-644, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3238147.3238195 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, BAM Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    Recent development of software aims at massively parallel execution, because of the trend to increase the number of processing units per CPU socket. But many approaches for program analysis are not designed to benefit from a multi-threaded execution and lack support to utilize multi-core computers. Rewriting existing algorithms is difficult and error-prone, and the design of new parallel algorithms also has limitations. An orthogonal problem is the granularity: computing each successor state in parallel seems too fine-grained, so the open question is to find the right structural level for parallel execution. We propose an elegant solution to these problems: Block summaries should be computed in parallel. Many successful approaches to software verification are based on summaries of control-flow blocks, large blocks, or function bodies. Block-abstraction memoization is a successful domain-independent approach for summary-based program analysis. We redesigned the verification approach of block-abstraction memoization starting from its original recursive definition, such that it can run in a parallel manner for utilizing the available computation resources without losing its advantages of being independent from a certain abstract domain. We present an implementation of our new approach for multi-core shared-memory machines. The experimental evaluation shows that our summary-based approach has no significant overhead compared to the existing sequential approach and that it has a significant speedup when using multi-threading.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ASE18a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Domain-Independent Multi-threaded Software Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd {ACM/IEEE} International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, {ASE} 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7, 2018}, editor = {Marianne Huchard and Christian K{\"{a}}stner and Gordon Fraser}, pages = {634-644}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3238147.3238195}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bam-parallel/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ASE.Domain-Independent_Multi-threaded_Software_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-09-07_ASE18_ParallelBAM_Karlheinz.pdf}, abstract = {Recent development of software aims at massively parallel execution, because of the trend to increase the number of processing units per CPU socket. But many approaches for program analysis are not designed to benefit from a multi-threaded execution and lack support to utilize multi-core computers. Rewriting existing algorithms is difficult and error-prone, and the design of new parallel algorithms also has limitations. An orthogonal problem is the granularity: computing each successor state in parallel seems too fine-grained, so the open question is to find the right structural level for parallel execution. We propose an elegant solution to these problems: Block summaries should be computed in parallel. Many successful approaches to software verification are based on summaries of control-flow blocks, large blocks, or function bodies. Block-abstraction memoization is a successful domain-independent approach for summary-based program analysis. We redesigned the verification approach of block-abstraction memoization starting from its original recursive definition, such that it can run in a parallel manner for utilizing the available computation resources without losing its advantages of being independent from a certain abstract domain. We present an implementation of our new approach for multi-core shared-memory machines. The experimental evaluation shows that our summary-based approach has no significant overhead compared to the existing sequential approach and that it has a significant speedup when using multi-threading.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,BAM}, }
64. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. Tests from Witnesses: Execution-Based Validation of Verification Results. In Catherine Dubois and Burkhart Wolff, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP 2018, Toulouse, France, June 27-29), LNCS 10889, pages 3-23, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    The research community made enormous progress in the past years in developing algorithms for verifying software, as shown by verification competitions (SV-COMP). However, the ultimate goal is to design certifying algorithms, which produce for a given input not only the output but in addition a witness. This makes it possible to validate that the output is a correct solution for the input problem. The advantage of certifying algorithms is that the validation of the result is —thanks to the witness— easier than the computation of the result. Unfortunately, the transfer to industry is slow, one of the reasons being that some verifiers report a considerable number of false alarms. The verification community works towards this ultimate goal using exchangeable violation witnesses, i.e., an independent validator can be used to check whether the produced witness indeed represents a bug. This reduces the required trust base from the complex verification tool to a validator that may be less complex, and thus, more easily trustable. But existing witness validators are based on model-checking technology — which does not solve the problem of reducing the trust base. To close this gap, we present a simple concept that is based on program execution: We extend witness validation by generating a test vector from an error path that is reconstructed from the witness. Then, we generate a test harness (similar to unit-test code) that can be compiled and linked together with the original program. We then run the executable program in an isolating container. If the execution violates the specification (similar to runtime verification) we confirm that the witness indeed represents a bug. This method reduces the trust base to the execution system, which seems appropriate for avoiding false alarms. To show feasibility and practicality, we implemented execution-based witness validation in two completely independent analysis frameworks, and performed a large experimental study.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TAP18, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Thomas Lemberger and Michael Tautschnig}, title = {Tests from Witnesses: Execution-Based Validation of Verification Results}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP~2018, Toulouse, France, June 27-29)}, editor = {Catherine Dubois and Burkhart Wolff}, pages = {3-23}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~10889}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/tests-from-witnesses/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-TAP.Tests_from_Witnesses_Execution-Based_Validation_of_Verification_Results.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-06-27_TAP18-Keynote-CooperativeVerification_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {The research community made enormous progress in the past years in developing algorithms for verifying software, as shown by verification competitions (SV-COMP). However, the ultimate goal is to design certifying algorithms, which produce for a given input not only the output but in addition a witness. This makes it possible to validate that the output is a correct solution for the input problem. The advantage of certifying algorithms is that the validation of the result is —thanks to the witness— easier than the computation of the result. Unfortunately, the transfer to industry is slow, one of the reasons being that some verifiers report a considerable number of false alarms. The verification community works towards this ultimate goal using exchangeable violation witnesses, i.e., an independent validator can be used to check whether the produced witness indeed represents a bug. This reduces the required trust base from the complex verification tool to a validator that may be less complex, and thus, more easily trustable. But existing witness validators are based on model-checking technology — which does not solve the problem of reducing the trust base. To close this gap, we present a simple concept that is based on program execution: We extend witness validation by generating a test vector from an error path that is reconstructed from the witness. Then, we generate a test harness (similar to unit-test code) that can be compiled and linked together with the original program. We then run the executable program in an isolating container. If the execution violates the specification (similar to runtime verification) we confirm that the witness indeed represents a bug. This method reduces the trust base to the execution system, which seems appropriate for avoiding false alarms. To show feasibility and practicality, we implemented execution-based witness validation in two completely independent analysis frameworks, and performed a large experimental study.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
65. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Reducer-Based Construction of Conditional Verifiers. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 3), pages 1182-1193, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3180155.3180259 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    Despite recent advances, software verification remains challenging. To solve hard verification tasks, we need to leverage not just one but several different verifiers employing different technologies. To this end, we need to exchange information between verifiers. Conditional model checking was proposed as a solution to exactly this problem: The idea is to let the first verifier output a condition which describes the state space that it successfully verified and to instruct the second verifier to verify the yet unverified state space using this condition. However, most verifiers do not understand conditions as input. In this paper, we propose the usage of an off-the-shelf construction of a conditional verifier from a given traditional verifier and a reducer. The reducer takes as input the program to be verified and the condition, and outputs a residual program whose paths cover the unverified state space described by the condition. As a proof of concept, we designed and implemented one particular reducer and composed three conditional model checkers from the three best verifiers at SV-COMP 2017. We defined a set of claims and experimentally evaluated their validity. All experimental data and results are available for replication.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ICSE18, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Reducer-Based Construction of Conditional Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 3)}, pages = {1182-1193}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, isbn = {978-1-4503-5638-1}, doi = {10.1145/3180155.3180259}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/reducer/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ICSE.Reducer-Based_Construction_of_Conditional_Verifiers.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-06-01_ICSE18_ReducerBasedConstructionOfConditionalVerifiers_Marie.pdf}, abstract = {Despite recent advances, software verification remains challenging. To solve hard verification tasks, we need to leverage not just one but several different verifiers employing different technologies. To this end, we need to exchange information between verifiers. Conditional model checking was proposed as a solution to exactly this problem: The idea is to let the first verifier output a condition which describes the state space that it successfully verified and to instruct the second verifier to verify the yet unverified state space using this condition. However, most verifiers do not understand conditions as input. In this paper, we propose the usage of an off-the-shelf construction of a conditional verifier from a given traditional verifier and a reducer. The reducer takes as input the program to be verified and the condition, and outputs a residual program whose paths cover the unverified state space described by the condition. As a proof of concept, we designed and implemented one particular reducer and composed three conditional model checkers from the three best verifiers at SV-COMP 2017. We defined a set of claims and experimentally evaluated their validity. All experimental data and results are available for replication.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
66. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Software Verification: Testing vs. Model Checking. In O. Strichman and R. Tzoref-Brill, editors, Proceedings of the 13th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC 2017, Haifa, Israel, November 13-25), LNCS 10629, pages 99-114, 2017. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70389-3_7 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    In practice, software testing has been the established method for finding bugs in programs for a long time. But in the last 15 years, software model checking has received a lot of attention, and many successful tools for software model checking exist today. We believe it is time for a careful comparative evaluation of automatic software testing against automatic software model checking. We chose six existing tools for automatic test-case generation, namely AFL-fuzz, CPATiger, Crest-ppc, FShell, Klee, and PRtest, and four tools for software model checking, namely CBMC, CPA-Seq, ESBMC-incr, and ESBMC-kInd, for the task of finding specification violations in a large benchmark suite consisting of 5693 C programs. In order to perform such an evaluation, we have implemented a framework for test-based falsification (TBF) that executes and validates test cases produced by test-case generation tools in order to find errors in programs. The conclusion of our experiments is that software model checkers can (i) find a substantially larger number of bugs (ii) in less time, and (iii) require less adjustment to the input programs.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{HVC17, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Software Verification: Testing vs. Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC~2017, Haifa, Israel, November 13-25)}, editor = {O.~Strichman and R.~Tzoref-Brill}, pages = {99-114}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10629}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-70389-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-70389-3_7}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/test-study/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-HVC.Software_Verification_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2017-11-15_HVC17_TestStudy_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {In practice, software testing has been the established method for finding bugs in programs for a long time. But in the last 15 years, software model checking has received a lot of attention, and many successful tools for software model checking exist today. We believe it is time for a careful comparative evaluation of automatic software testing against automatic software model checking. We chose six existing tools for automatic test-case generation, namely AFL-fuzz, CPATiger, Crest-ppc, FShell, Klee, and PRtest, and four tools for software model checking, namely CBMC, CPA-Seq, ESBMC-incr, and ESBMC-kInd, for the task of finding specification violations in a large benchmark suite consisting of 5693 C programs. In order to perform such an evaluation, we have implemented a framework for test-based falsification (TBF) that executes and validates test cases produced by test-case generation tools in order to find errors in programs. The conclusion of our experiments is that software model checkers can (i) find a substantially larger number of bugs (ii) in less time, and (iii) require less adjustment to the input programs.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the HVC 2017 Best Paper Award.<br> <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-HVC.Software_Verification_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
    Additional Infos

    Won the HVC 2017 Best Paper Award.
    Errata available.
67. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification with Validation of Results (Report on SV-COMP 2017). In A. Legay and T. Margaria, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29), LNCS 10206, pages 331-349, 2017. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS17, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification with Validation of Results ({R}eport on {SV-COMP} 2017)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29)}, editor = {A.~Legay and T.~Margaria}, pages = {331-349}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-54579-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2017/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-TACAS.Software_Verification_with_Validation_of_Results.pdf}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
68. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, and Matthias Heizmann. Exchanging Verification Witnesses between Verifiers. In J. Jürjens and K. Schneider, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2017, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (21.-24. Februar 2017, Hannover, Deutschland), LNI P-267, pages 93-94, 2017. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE17-Witnesses, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann}, title = {Exchanging Verification Witnesses between Verifiers}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2017, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (21.-24. Februar 2017, Hannover, Deutschland)}, editor = {J.~J{\"{u}}rjens and K.~Schneider}, pages = {93-94}, year = {2017}, series = {{LNI}~P-267}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2016.html#FSE16b">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2016.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/1288}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2016.
69. Pavel Andrianov, Karlheinz Friedberger, Mikhail U. Mandrykin, Vadim S. Mutilin, and Anton Volkov. CPA-BAM-BnB: Block-Abstraction Memoization and Region-Based Memory Models for Predicate Abstractions (Competition Contribution). In Axel Legay and Tiziana Margaria, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29), LNCS 10206, pages 355-359, 2017. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Our submission to SV-COMP'17 is based on the software verification framework CPAchecker. Combined with value analysis and predicate analysis we use the concept of block-abstraction memoization with optimization and several fixes relative to the version of SV-COMP'16. A novelty of our approach is usage of BnB memory model for predicate analysis, which efficiently divides the accessed memory into memory regions and thus leads to smaller formulas.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPABAM-COMP17, author = {Pavel Andrianov and Karlheinz Friedberger and Mikhail U. Mandrykin and Vadim S. Mutilin and Anton Volkov}, title = {{CPA-BAM-BnB}: {Block}-Abstraction Memoization and Region-Based Memory Models for Predicate Abstractions (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29)}, editor = {Axel Legay and Tiziana Margaria}, pages = {355--359}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-54579-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22}, abstract = {Our submission to SV-COMP'17 is based on the software verification framework CPAchecker. Combined with value analysis and predicate analysis we use the concept of block-abstraction memoization with optimization and several fixes relative to the version of SV-COMP'16. A novelty of our approach is usage of BnB memory model for predicate analysis, which efficiently divides the accessed memory into memory regions and thus leads to smaller formulas.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, }
70. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, and Matthias Heizmann. Correctness Witnesses: Exchanging Verification Results Between Verifiers. In T. Zimmermann, J. Cleland-Huang, and Z. Su, editors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18), pages 326-337, 2016. ACM. doi:10.1145/2950290.2950351 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FSE16b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann}, title = {Correctness Witnesses: {E}xchanging Verification Results Between Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE~2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18)}, editor = {T.~Zimmermann and J.~Cleland-Huang and Z.~Su}, pages = {326-337}, year = {2016}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/2950290.2950351}, sha256 = {}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-FSE.Correctness_Witnesses_Exchanging_Verification_Results_between_Verifiers.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
71. Dirk Beyer. Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2016, Part 1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14), LNCS 9952, pages 874-880, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract

    Many of the current verification approaches can be classified into automatic and interactive techniques, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one of the current open problems is to design solutions to combine the two approaches and accelerate technology transfer. We outline four existing techniques that might be able to contribute to combination solutions: (1) Conditional model checking is a technique that gives detailed information (in form of a condition) about the verified state space, i.e., informs the user (or tools later in a tool chain) of the outcome. Also, it accepts as input detailed information (again as condition) about what the conditional model checker has to do. (2) Correctness witnesses, stored in a machine-readable exchange format, contain (partial) invariants that can be used to prove the correctness of a system. For example, tools that usually expect invariants from the user can read the invariants from such correctness witnesses and ask the user only for the remaining invariants. (3) Abstraction-refinement based approaches that use a dynamically adjustable precision (such as in lazy CEGAR approaches) can be provided with invariants from the user or from other tools, e.g., from deductive methods. This way, the approach can succeed in constructing a proof even if it was not able to come up with the required invariant. (4) The technique of path invariants extracts (in a CEGAR method) a path program that represents an interesting part of the program for which an invariant is needed. Such a path program can be given to an expensive (or interactive) method for computing invariants that can then be fed back to a CEGAR method to continue verifying the large program. While the existing techniques originate from software verification, we believe that the new combination ideas are useful for verifying general systems.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISOLA16b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques}, booktitle = {7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2016, Part~1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {874-880}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9952}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-47165-5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Partial_Verification_and_Intermediate_Results_as_a_Solution_to_Combine_Automatic_and_Interactive_Verification_Techniques.pdf}, abstract = {Many of the current verification approaches can be classified into automatic and interactive techniques, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one of the current open problems is to design solutions to combine the two approaches and accelerate technology transfer. We outline four existing techniques that might be able to contribute to combination solutions: (1) Conditional model checking is a technique that gives detailed information (in form of a condition) about the verified state space, i.e., informs the user (or tools later in a tool chain) of the outcome. Also, it accepts as input detailed information (again as condition) about what the conditional model checker has to do. (2) Correctness witnesses, stored in a machine-readable exchange format, contain (partial) invariants that can be used to prove the correctness of a system. For example, tools that usually expect invariants from the user can read the invariants from such correctness witnesses and ask the user only for the remaining invariants. (3) Abstraction-refinement based approaches that use a dynamically adjustable precision (such as in lazy CEGAR approaches) can be provided with invariants from the user or from other tools, e.g., from deductive methods. This way, the approach can succeed in constructing a proof even if it was not able to come up with the required invariant. (4) The technique of path invariants extracts (in a CEGAR method) a path program that represents an interesting part of the program for which an invariant is needed. Such a path program can be given to an expensive (or interactive) method for computing invariants that can then be fed back to a CEGAR method to continue verifying the large program. While the existing techniques originate from software verification, we believe that the new combination ideas are useful for verifying general systems.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
72. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Symbolic Execution with CEGAR. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2016, Part 1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14), LNCS 9952, pages 195-211, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_14 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract

    Symbolic execution, a standard technique in program analysis, is a particularly successful and popular component in systems for test-case generation. One of the open research problems is that the approach suffers from the path-explosion problem. We apply abstraction to symbolic execution, and refine the abstract model using counterexampleguided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), a standard technique from model checking. We also use refinement selection with existing and new heuristics to influence the behavior and further improve the performance of our refinement procedure. We implemented our new technique in the open-source software-verification framework CPAchecker. Our experimental results show that the implementation is highly competitive.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ISOLA16a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Symbolic Execution with {CEGAR}}, booktitle = {7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2016, Part~1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {195-211}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9952}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-symexec/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Symbolic_Execution_with_CEGAR.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2016-10-10_ISoLA16_SymbolicExecutionWithCegar_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {Symbolic execution, a standard technique in program analysis, is a particularly successful and popular component in systems for test-case generation. One of the open research problems is that the approach suffers from the path-explosion problem. We apply abstraction to symbolic execution, and refine the abstract model using counterexampleguided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), a standard technique from model checking. We also use refinement selection with existing and new heuristics to influence the behavior and further improve the performance of our refinement procedure. We implemented our new technique in the open-source software-verification framework CPAchecker. Our experimental results show that the implementation is highly competitive.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {<a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Symbolic_Execution_with_CEGAR.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
    Additional Infos

    Errata available.
73. Dirk Beyer. Reliable and Reproducible Competition Results with BenchExec and Witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2016). In M. Chechik and J.-F. Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 887-904, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_55 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS16, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Reliable and Reproducible Competition Results with {{\sc BenchExec}} and Witnesses ({R}eport on {SV-COMP} 2016)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {M.~Chechik and J.-F.~Raskin}, pages = {887-904}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49674-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_55}, sha256 = {bc8f02d7c0651c1197977f13e77c1fcb22a5f85aadd96dc4aa59b454b199ed0e}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2016/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
74. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. A Light-Weight Approach for Verifying Multi-Threaded Programs with CPAchecker. In J. Bouda, L. Holík, J. Kofroň, J. Strejček, and A. Rambousek, editors, Proceedings of the 11th Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS 2016, Telč, Czechia, October 21-23), EPTCS 233, pages 61-71, 2016. ArXiV. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.233.6 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{MEMICS16-Multi-Threaded, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {A Light-Weight Approach for Verifying Multi-Threaded Programs with CPAchecker}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS~2016, Tel\v{c}, Czechia, October 21-23)}, editor = {J.~Bouda and L.~Hol\'ik and J.~Kofro\v{n} and J.~Strej\v{c}ek and A.~Rambousek}, pages = {61-71}, year = {2016}, series = {EPTCS~233}, publisher = {ArXiV}, doi = {10.4204/EPTCS.233.6}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-MEMICS.A_Light-Weight_Approach_for_Verifying_Multi-Threaded_Programs_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
75. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. SMT-based Software Model Checking: An Experimental Comparison of Four Algorithms. In Proc. VSTTE, LNCS 9971, pages 181-198, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_14 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{VSTTE16b-AlgorithmComparison, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {{SMT}-based Software Model Checking: {A}n Experimental Comparison of Four Algorithms}, booktitle = {Proc.\ VSTTE}, pages = {181--198}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9971}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/k-ind-compare/index-vstte.html}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-VSTTE.SMT-based_Software_Model_Checking_An_Experimental_Comparison_of_Four_Algorithms.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2018.complete.html#AlgorithmComparison-JAR">extended version</a> of this article appeared in JAR.}, }
    Additional Infos

    An extended version of this article appeared in JAR.
76. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Andreas Stahlbauer. Verification Witnesses. In J. Knoop and U. Zdun, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, Österreich), LNI 252, pages 105-106, 2016. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE16b-VerificationWitnesses, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {Verification Witnesses}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, {\"O}sterreich)}, editor = {J.~Knoop and U.~Zdun}, pages = {105-106}, year = {2016}, series = {{LNI}~252}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.html#FSE15">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2015.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/746}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2015.
77. Malte Lochau, Johannes Bürdek, Stefan Bauregger, Andreas Holzer, Alexander von Rhein, Sven Apel, and Dirk Beyer. On Facilitating Reuse in Multi-goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines. In J. Knoop and U. Zdun, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, Österreich), LNI 252, pages 81-82, 2016. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE16a-Test-SPL, author = {Malte Lochau and Johannes B{\"u}rdek and Stefan Bauregger and Andreas Holzer and Alexander von Rhein and Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer}, title = {On Facilitating Reuse in Multi-goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, {\"O}sterreich)}, editor = {J.~Knoop and U.~Zdun}, pages = {81-82}, year = {2016}, series = {{LNI}~252}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.html#FASE15">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2015.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/733}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2015.
78. Egor George Karpenkov, David Monniaux, and Philipp Wendler. Program Analysis with Local Policy Iteration. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 17-19), LNCS 9583, pages 127-146, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_6 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    We present local policy iteration (LPI), a new algorithm for deriving numerical invariants that combines the precision of max-policy iteration with the flexibility and scalability of conventional Kleene iterations. It is defined in the Configurable Program Analysis (CPA) framework, thus allowing inter-analysis communication. LPI uses adjustable-block encoding in order to traverse loop-free program sections, possibly containing branching, without introducing extra abstraction. Our technique operates over any template linear constraint domain, including the interval and octagon domains; templates can also be derived from the program source. The implementation is evaluated on a set of benchmarks from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). It competes favorably with state-of-the-art analyzers.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{LPI, author = {Egor George Karpenkov and David Monniaux and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Program Analysis with Local Policy Iteration}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI~2016, St.~Petersburg, FL, USA, January 17-19)}, pages = {127--146}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9583}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_6}, sha256 = {}, url = {http://lpi.metaworld.me}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03424}, abstract = {We present local policy iteration (LPI), a new algorithm for deriving numerical invariants that combines the precision of max-policy iteration with the flexibility and scalability of conventional Kleene iterations. It is defined in the Configurable Program Analysis (CPA) framework, thus allowing inter-analysis communication. LPI uses adjustable-block encoding in order to traverse loop-free program sections, possibly containing branching, without introducing extra abstraction. Our technique operates over any template linear constraint domain, including the interval and octagon domains; templates can also be derived from the program source. The implementation is evaluated on a set of benchmarks from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). It competes favorably with state-of-the-art analyzers.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
79. Karlheinz Friedberger. CPA-BAM: Block-Abstraction Memoization with Value Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution). In Marsha Chechik and Jean-François Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 912-915, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPABAM-COMP16, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {{CPA-BAM}: Block-Abstraction Memoization with Value Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {Marsha Chechik and Jean{-}Fran{\c{c}}ois Raskin}, pages = {912--915}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49673-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, }
80. Stefan Löwe. CPA-RefSel: CPAchecker with Refinement Selection (Competition Contribution). In Marsha Chechik and Jean-François Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 916-919, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPAREFSEL-COMP16, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {{CPA-RefSel}: {{\sc CPAchecker}} with Refinement Selection (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {Marsha Chechik and Jean{-}Fran{\c{c}}ois Raskin}, pages = {916--919}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49673-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won category DeviceDriversLinux64 in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2016/">SV-COMP'16</a></span>}, }
    Additional Infos

    Won category DeviceDriversLinux64 in SV-COMP'16
81. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Andreas Stahlbauer. Witness Validation and Stepwise Testification across Software Verifiers. In E. Di Nitto, M. Harman, and P. Heymans, editors, Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015, Bergamo, Italy, August 31 - September 4), pages 721-733, 2015. ACM, New York. doi:10.1145/2786805.2786867 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FSE15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {Witness Validation and Stepwise Testification across Software Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015, Bergamo, Italy, August 31 - September 4)}, editor = {E.~Di~Nitto and M.~Harman and P.~Heymans}, pages = {721-733}, year = {2015}, publisher = {ACM, New York}, isbn = {978-1-4503-3675-8}, doi = {10.1145/2786805.2786867}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-FSE.Witness_Validation_and_Stepwise_Testification_across_Software_Verifiers.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
82. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Refinement Selection. In B. Fischer and J. Geldenhuys, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN 2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26), LNCS 9232, pages 20-38, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_3 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a property-directed approach for the automatic construction of an abstract model for a given system. The approach learns information from infeasible error paths in order to refine the abstract model. We address the problem of selecting which information to learn from a given infeasible error path. In previous work, we presented a method that enables refinement selection by extracting a set of sliced prefixes from a given infeasible error path, each of which represents a different reason for infeasibility of the error path and thus, a possible way to refine the abstract model. In this work, we (1) define and investigate several promising heuristics for selecting an appropriate precision for refinement, and (2) propose a new combination of a value analysis and a predicate analysis that does not only find out which information to learn from an infeasible error path, but automatically decides which analysis should be preferred for a refinement. These contributions allow a more systematic refinement strategy for CEGAR-based analyses. We evaluated the idea on software verification. We provide an implementation of the new concepts in the verification framework CPAchecker and make it publicly available. In a thorough experimental study, we show that refinement selection often avoids state-space explosion where existing approaches diverge, and that it can be even more powerful if applied on a higher level, where it decides which analysis of a combination should be favored for a refinement.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SPIN15b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Refinement Selection}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN~2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26)}, editor = {B.~Fischer and J.~Geldenhuys}, pages = {20-38}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9232}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-23403-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_3}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-SPIN.Refinement_Selection.pdf}, abstract = {Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a property-directed approach for the automatic construction of an abstract model for a given system. The approach learns information from infeasible error paths in order to refine the abstract model. We address the problem of selecting which information to learn from a given infeasible error path. In previous work, we presented a method that enables refinement selection by extracting a set of sliced prefixes from a given infeasible error path, each of which represents a different reason for infeasibility of the error path and thus, a possible way to refine the abstract model. In this work, we (1) define and investigate several promising heuristics for selecting an appropriate precision for refinement, and (2) propose a new combination of a value analysis and a predicate analysis that does not only find out which information to learn from an infeasible error path, but automatically decides which analysis should be preferred for a refinement. These contributions allow a more systematic refinement strategy for CEGAR-based analyses. We evaluated the idea on software verification. We provide an implementation of the new concepts in the verification framework CPAchecker and make it publicly available. In a thorough experimental study, we show that refinement selection often avoids state-space explosion where existing approaches diverge, and that it can be even more powerful if applied on a higher level, where it decides which analysis of a combination should be favored for a refinement.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
83. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. Boosting k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants. In D. Kröning and C. S. Pasareanu, editors, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24), LNCS 9206, pages 622-640, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    k-Induction is a promising technique to extend bounded model checking from falsification to verification. In software verification, k-induction works only if auxiliary invariants are used to strengthen the induction hypothesis. The problem that we address is to generate such invariants (1) automatically without user-interaction, (2) efficiently such that little verification time is spent on the invariant generation, and (3) that are sufficiently strong for a k-induction proof. We boost the k-induction approach to significantly increase effectiveness and efficiency in the following way: We start in parallel to k-induction a data-flow-based invariant generator that supports dynamic precision adjustment and refine the precision of the invariant generator continuously during the analysis, such that the invariants become increasingly stronger. The k-induction engine is extended such that the invariants from the invariant generator are injected in each iteration to strengthen the hypothesis. The new method solves the above-mentioned problem because it (1) automatically chooses an invariant by step-wise refinement, (2) starts always with a lightweight invariant generation that is computationally inexpensive, and (3) refines the invariant precision more and more to inject stronger and stronger invariants into the induction system. We present and evaluate an implementation of our approach, as well as all other existing approaches, in the open-source verification-framework CPAchecker. Our experiments show that combining k-induction with continuously-refined invariants significantly increases effectiveness and efficiency, and outperforms all existing implementations of k-induction-based verification of C programs in terms of successful results.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CAV15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Boosting k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24)}, editor = {D.~Kr{\"o}ning and C.~S.~Pasareanu}, pages = {622-640}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-21689-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42}, sha256 = {beb169351523c85e417e028c4e32b47c2c29e5db2e7b29ef8f5a2230e9562216}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-k-induction/}, abstract = {k-Induction is a promising technique to extend bounded model checking from falsification to verification. In software verification, k-induction works only if auxiliary invariants are used to strengthen the induction hypothesis. The problem that we address is to generate such invariants (1) automatically without user-interaction, (2) efficiently such that little verification time is spent on the invariant generation, and (3) that are sufficiently strong for a k-induction proof. We boost the k-induction approach to significantly increase effectiveness and efficiency in the following way: We start in parallel to k-induction a data-flow-based invariant generator that supports dynamic precision adjustment and refine the precision of the invariant generator continuously during the analysis, such that the invariants become increasingly stronger. The k-induction engine is extended such that the invariants from the invariant generator are injected in each iteration to strengthen the hypothesis. The new method solves the above-mentioned problem because it (1) automatically chooses an invariant by step-wise refinement, (2) starts always with a lightweight invariant generation that is computationally inexpensive, and (3) refines the invariant precision more and more to inject stronger and stronger invariants into the induction system. We present and evaluate an implementation of our approach, as well as all other existing approaches, in the open-source verification-framework CPAchecker. Our experiments show that combining k-induction with continuously-refined invariants significantly increases effectiveness and efficiency, and outperforms all existing implementations of k-induction-based verification of C programs in terms of successful results.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
84. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Sliced Path Prefixes: An Effective Method to Enable Refinement Selection. In S. Graf and M. Viswanathan, editors, Proceedings of the 35th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems (FORTE 2015, Grenoble, France, June 2-4), LNCS 9039, pages 228-243, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19195-9_15 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Automatic software verification relies on constructing, for a given program, an abstract model that is (1) abstract enough to avoid state-space explosion and (2) precise enough to reason about the specification. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a standard technique that suggests to extract information from infeasible error paths, in order to refine the abstract model if it is too imprecise. Existing approaches -including our previous work- do not choose the refinement for a given path systematically. We present a method that generates alternative refinements and allows to systematically choose a suited one. The method takes as input one given infeasible error path and applies a slicing technique to obtain a set of new error paths that are more abstract than the original error path but still infeasible, each for a different reason. The (more abstract) constraints of the new paths can be passed to a standard refinement procedure, in order to obtain a set of possible refinements, one for each new path. Our technique is completely independent from the abstract domain that is used in the program analysis, and does not rely on a certain proof technique, such as SMT solving. We implemented the new algorithm in the verification framework CPAchecker and made our extension publicly available. The experimental evaluation of our technique indicates that there is a wide range of possibilities on how to refine the abstract model for a given error path, and we demonstrate that the choice of which refinement to apply to the abstract model has a significant impact on the verification effectiveness and efficiency.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FORTE15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Sliced Path Prefixes: An Effective Method to Enable Refinement Selection}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 35th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems (FORTE~2015, Grenoble, France, June 2-4)}, editor = {S.~Graf and M.~Viswanathan}, pages = {228-243}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9039}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-19194-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-19195-9_15}, sha256 = {96e16841eb13a602455334a71a516f509ad1b1e2328edade3d5954062b387e7d}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/#FORTE15}, abstract = {Automatic software verification relies on constructing, for a given program, an abstract model that is (1) abstract enough to avoid state-space explosion and (2) precise enough to reason about the specification. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a standard technique that suggests to extract information from infeasible error paths, in order to refine the abstract model if it is too imprecise. Existing approaches ---including our previous work--- do not choose the refinement for a given path systematically. We present a method that generates alternative refinements and allows to systematically choose a suited one. The method takes as input one given infeasible error path and applies a slicing technique to obtain a set of new error paths that are more abstract than the original error path but still infeasible, each for a different reason. The (more abstract) constraints of the new paths can be passed to a standard refinement procedure, in order to obtain a set of possible refinements, one for each new path. Our technique is completely independent from the abstract domain that is used in the program analysis, and does not rely on a certain proof technique, such as SMT solving. We implemented the new algorithm in the verification framework CPAchecker and made our extension publicly available. The experimental evaluation of our technique indicates that there is a wide range of possibilities on how to refine the abstract model for a given error path, and we demonstrate that the choice of which refinement to apply to the abstract model has a significant impact on the verification effectiveness and efficiency.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
85. Alexander von Rhein, Alexander Grebhahn, Sven Apel, Norbert Siegmund, Dirk Beyer, and Thorsten Berger. Presence-Condition Simplification in Highly Configurable Systems. In A. Bertolino, G. Canfora, and S. Elbaum, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24), pages 178-188, 2015. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2015.39 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ICSE15, author = {Alexander von Rhein and Alexander Grebhahn and Sven Apel and Norbert Siegmund and Dirk Beyer and Thorsten Berger}, title = {Presence-Condition Simplification in Highly Configurable Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24)}, editor = {A.~Bertolino and G.~Canfora and S.~Elbaum}, pages = {178-188}, year = {2015}, publisher = {IEEE}, isbn = {978-1-4799-1934-5}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE.2015.39}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-ICSE.Presence-Condition_Simplification_in_Highly_Configurable_Systems.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
86. Johannes Bürdek, Malte Lochau, Stefan Bauregger, Andreas Holzer, Alexander von Rhein, Sven Apel, and Dirk Beyer. Facilitating Reuse in Multi-Goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines. In A. Egyed and I. Schaefer, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2015, London, UK, April 13-15), LNCS 9033, pages 84-99, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_6 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FASE15, author = {Johannes B{\"u}rdek and Malte Lochau and Stefan Bauregger and Andreas Holzer and Alexander von Rhein and Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer}, title = {Facilitating Reuse in Multi-Goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2015, London, UK, April 13-15)}, editor = {A.~Egyed and I.~Schaefer}, pages = {84-99}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9033}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46674-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_6}, sha256 = {fcd4d2f3155e3e061318a444f578c41c5e224a7c76e1bf161fe55cc7ae01ae86}, url = {http://forsyte.at/software/cpatiger/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, }
87. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification and Verifiable Witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2015). In C. Baier and C. Tinelli, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015, London, UK, April 13-17), LNCS 9035, pages 401-416, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_31 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS15, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification and Verifiable Witnesses (Report on {SV-COMP} 2015)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2015, London, UK, April 13-17)}, editor = {C.~Baier and C.~Tinelli}, pages = {401-416}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9035}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46680-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_31}, sha256 = {858448ee22256b3ed7f35603d81e942b58652f3b4d2660a22b858dc1c3ac16d0}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2015/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
88. Dirk Beyer and Stefan Löwe. Interpolation for Value Analysis. In U. Aßmann, B. Demuth, T. Spitta, G. Püschel, and R. Kaiser, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2015, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (17. März - 20. März 2015, Dresden, Deutschland), LNI 239, pages 73-74, 2015. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE15-ExplicitCEGAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {Interpolation for Value Analysis}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2015, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (17. M{\"{a}}rz - 20. M{\"{a}}rz 2015, Dresden, Deutschland)}, editor = {U.~A{\ss}mann and B.~Demuth and T.~Spitta and G.~P{\"{u}}schel and R.~Kaiser}, pages = {73-74}, year = {2015}, series = {{LNI}~239}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2013.html#FASE13">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2013.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/2495}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2013.
89. Matthias Dangl, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic (Competition Contribution). In C. Baier and C. Tinelli, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015, London, UK, April 13-17), LNCS 9035, pages 423-425, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    We submit to SV-COMP'15 the software-verification framework CPAchecker. The submitted configuration is a combination of seven different analyses, based on explicit-value analysis, k-induction, predicate analysis, and concrete memory graphs. These analyses use concepts such as CEGAR, lazy abstraction, interpolation, adjustable-block encoding, bounded model checking, invariant generation, and block-abstraction memoization. Found counterexamples are cross-checked by a bit-precise analysis. The combination of several different analyses copes well with the diversity of the verification tasks in SV-COMP.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPACHECKER-COMP15, author = {Matthias Dangl and Stefan L{\"{o}}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2015, London, UK, April 13-17)}, editor = {C.~Baier and C.~Tinelli}, pages = {423--425}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9035}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46680-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-TACAS.CPAchecker_with_Support_for_Recursive_Programs_and_Floating-Point_Arithmetic.pdf}, abstract = {We submit to SV-COMP'15 the software-verification framework CPAchecker. The submitted configuration is a combination of seven different analyses, based on explicit-value analysis, k-induction, predicate analysis, and concrete memory graphs. These analyses use concepts such as CEGAR, lazy abstraction, interpolation, adjustable-block encoding, bounded model checking, invariant generation, and block-abstraction memoization. Found counterexamples are cross-checked by a bit-precise analysis. The combination of several different analyses copes well with the diversity of the verification tasks in SV-COMP.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Overall, and received three silver and two bronze medals in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2015/">SV-COMP'15</a></span>}, }
    Additional Infos

    Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Overall, and received three silver and two bronze medals in SV-COMP'15
90. Dirk Beyer, Georg Dresler, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification in the Google App-Engine Cloud. In A. Biere and R. Bloem, editors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 18-22), LNCS 8559, pages 327-333, 2014. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_21 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cloud-Based Software Verification Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Software verification often requires a large amount of computing resources. In the last years, cloud services emerged as an inexpensive, flexible, and energy-efficient source of computing power. We have investigated if such cloud resources can be used effectively for verification. We chose the platform-as-a-service offer Google App Engine and ported the open-source verification framework CPAchecker to it. We provide our new verification service as a web front-end to users who wish to solve single verification tasks (tutorial usage), and an API for integrating the service into existing verification infrastructures (massively parallel bulk usage). We experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of this service and show that it can be successfully used to offload verification work to the cloud, considerably sparing local verification resources.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CAV14, author = {Dirk Beyer and Georg Dresler and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification in the {Google} {App-Engine} Cloud}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV~2014, Vienna, Austria, July 18-22)}, editor = {A.~Biere and R.~Bloem}, pages = {327-333}, year = {2014}, series = {LNCS~8559}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-08866-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_21}, sha256 = {f92060721e703c8553d5420c34f07eea24fe25d36ae9c02217688606e1898704}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-appengine}, abstract = {Software verification often requires a large amount of computing resources. In the last years, cloud services emerged as an inexpensive, flexible, and energy-efficient source of computing power. We have investigated if such cloud resources can be used effectively for verification. We chose the platform-as-a-service offer Google App Engine and ported the open-source verification framework CPAchecker to it. We provide our new verification service as a web front-end to users who wish to solve single verification tasks (tutorial usage), and an API for integrating the service into existing verification infrastructures (massively parallel bulk usage). We experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of this service and show that it can be successfully used to offload verification work to the cloud, considerably sparing local verification resources.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Cloud-Based Software Verification}, }
91. Dirk Beyer. Status Report on Software Verification (Competition Summary SV-COMP 2014). In E. Abraham and K. Havelund, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13), LNCS 8413, pages 373-388, 2014. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_25 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    This report describes the 3rd International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2014), which is the third edition of a thorough comparative evaluation of fully automatic software verifiers. The reported results represent the state of the art in automatic software verification, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The verification tasks of the competition consist of nine categories containing a total of 2868 C programs, covering bit-vector operations, concurrent execution, control-flow and integer data-flow, device-drivers, heap data structures, memory manipulation via pointers, recursive functions, and sequentialized concurrency. The specifications include reachability of program labels and memory safety. The competition is organized as a satellite event at TACAS 2014 in Grenoble, France.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS14, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Status Report on Software Verification (Competition Summary {SV-COMP} 2014)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13)}, editor = {E.~Abraham and K. Havelund}, pages = {373-388}, year = {2014}, series = {LNCS~8413}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-54861-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_25}, sha256 = {33d6c82695f46b11a762d5237608b7934f8bf664f5bd36ad3e1722591b398d7c}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2014/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2014-TACAS.Status_Report_on_Software_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {This report describes the 3rd International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2014), which is the third edition of a thorough comparative evaluation of fully automatic software verifiers. The reported results represent the state of the art in automatic software verification, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The verification tasks of the competition consist of nine categories containing a total of 2868 C programs, covering bit-vector operations, concurrent execution, control-flow and integer data-flow, device-drivers, heap data structures, memory manipulation via pointers, recursive functions, and sequentialized concurrency. The specifications include reachability of program labels and memory safety. The competition is organized as a satellite event at TACAS 2014 in Grenoble, France.}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, }
92. Dirk Beyer, Andreas Holzer, Michael Tautschnig, and Helmut Veith. Reusing Information in Multi-Goal Reachability Analyses. In W. Hasselbring and N. C. Ehmke, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2014, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (25. Februar - 28. Februar 2014, Kiel, Deutschland), LNI 227, pages 97-98, 2014. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE14-MultiGoal, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Holzer and Michael Tautschnig and Helmut Veith}, title = {Reusing Information in Multi-Goal Reachability Analyses}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2014, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (25. Februar - 28. Februar 2014, Kiel, Deutschland)}, editor = {W.~Hasselbring and N.~C.~Ehmke}, pages = {97--98}, year = {2014}, series = {{LNI}~227}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/30979/097.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2013.html#ESOP13">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESOP 2013.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/30979}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESOP 2013.
93. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, Evgeny Novikov, Andreas Stahlbauer, and Philipp Wendler. Precision Reuse in CPAchecker. In W. Hasselbring and N. C. Ehmke, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2014, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (25. Februar - 28. Februar 2014, Kiel, Deutschland), LNI 227, pages 41-42, 2014. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract

    Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are reasonably small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems created from 62 Linux kernel device drivers with 1119 revisions.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SE14-Reuse, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"{o}}we and Evgeny Novikov and Andreas Stahlbauer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Precision Reuse in CPAchecker}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2014, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (25. Februar - 28. Februar 2014, Kiel, Deutschland)}, editor = {W.~Hasselbring and N.~C.~Ehmke}, pages = {41--42}, year = {2014}, series = {{LNI}~227}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/30949/041.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, abstract = {Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are reasonably small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems created from 62 Linux kernel device drivers with 1119 revisions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2013.html#FSE13">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2013.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/30949}, }
    Additional Infos

    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2013.
94. Stefan Löwe, Mikhail U. Mandrykin, and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker with Sequential Combination of Explicit-Value Analyses and Predicate Analyses (Competition Contribution). In E. Abraham and K. Havelund, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13), LNCS 8413, pages 392-394, 2014. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    CPAchecker is a framework for software verification, built on the foundations of configurable program analysis (CPA). For the SV-COMP'14, we file a CPAchecker configuration that runs up to five analyses in sequence. The first two analyses of our approach utilize the explicit-value domain for modeling the state space, while the remaining analyses are based on predicate abstraction. In addition to that, a bit-precise counterexample checker comes into action whenever an analysis finds a counterexample. The combination of conceptually different analyses is key to the success of our verification approach, as the diversity of verification tasks is taken into account.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{CPACHECKER-COMP14, author = {Stefan~L{\"{o}}we and Mikhail~U.~Mandrykin and Philipp~Wendler}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Sequential Combination of Explicit-Value Analyses and Predicate Analyses (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-13)}, editor = {E.~Abraham and K. Havelund}, pages = {392-394}, year = {2014}, series = {LNCS~8413}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-54861-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2014-TACAS.CPAchecker_with_Sequential_Combination_of_Explicit-Value_Analyses_and_Predicate_Analyses.pdf}, abstract = {CPAchecker is a framework for software verification, built on the foundations of configurable program analysis (CPA). For the SV-COMP'14, we file a CPAchecker configuration that runs up to five analyses in sequence. The first two analyses of our approach utilize the explicit-value domain for modeling the state space, while the remaining analyses are based on predicate abstraction. In addition to that, a bit-precise counterexample checker comes into action whenever an analysis finds a counterexample. The combination of conceptually different analyses is key to the success of our verification approach, as the diversity of verification tasks is taken into account.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Simple, and received one silver and one bronze medal in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2014/">SV-COMP'14</a></span>}, }
    Additional Infos

    Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Simple, and received one silver and one bronze medal in SV-COMP'14
95. Sven Apel, Dirk Beyer, Karlheinz Friedberger, Franco Raimondi, and Alexander von Rhein. Domain Types: Abstract-Domain Selection Based on Variable Usage. In V. Bertacco and A. Legay, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC 2013, Haifa, Israel, November 5-7), LNCS 8244, pages 262-278, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03077-7_18 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    The success of software model checking depends on finding an appropriate abstraction of the program to verify. The choice of the abstract domain and the analysis configuration is currently left to the user, who may not be familiar with the tradeoffs and performance details of the available abstract domains. We introduce the concept of domain types, which classify the program variables into types that are more fine-grained than standard declared types (e.g., 'int' and 'long') to guide the selection of an appropriate abstract domain for a model checker. Our implementation on top of an existing verification framework determines the domain type for each variable in a pre-analysis step, based on the usage of variables in the program, and then assigns each variable to an abstract domain. Based on a series of experiments on a comprehensive set of verification tasks from international verification competitions, we demonstrate that the choice of the abstract domain per variable (we consider one explicit and one symbolic domain) can substantially improve the verification in terms of performance and precision.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{HVC13, author = {Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger and Franco Raimondi and Alexander von Rhein}, title = {Domain Types: Abstract-Domain Selection Based on Variable Usage}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC 2013, Haifa, Israel, November 5-7)}, editor = {V.~Bertacco and A.~Legay}, pages = {262-278}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~8244}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-03076-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-03077-7_18}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/domaintypes/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-HVC.Domain_Types_Abstract-Domain_Selection_Based_on_Variable_Usage.pdf}, abstract = {The success of software model checking depends on finding an appropriate abstraction of the program to verify. The choice of the abstract domain and the analysis configuration is currently left to the user, who may not be familiar with the tradeoffs and performance details of the available abstract domains. We introduce the concept of domain types, which classify the program variables into types that are more fine-grained than standard declared types (e.g., `int' and `long') to guide the selection of an appropriate abstract domain for a model checker. Our implementation on top of an existing verification framework determines the domain type for each variable in a pre-analysis step, based on the usage of variables in the program, and then assigns each variable to an abstract domain. Based on a series of experiments on a comprehensive set of verification tasks from international verification competitions, we demonstrate that the choice of the abstract domain per variable (we consider one explicit and one symbolic domain) can substantially improve the verification in terms of performance and precision.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
96. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, Evgeny Novikov, Andreas Stahlbauer, and Philipp Wendler. Precision Reuse for Efficient Regression Verification. In B. Meyer, L. Baresi, and M. Mezini, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013, St. Petersburg, Russia, August 18-26), pages 389-399, 2013. ACM. doi:10.1145/2491411.2491429 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are reasonably small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems created from 62 Linux kernel device drivers with 1119 revisions.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{FSE13, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Evgeny Novikov and Andreas Stahlbauer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Precision Reuse for Efficient Regression Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013, St. Petersburg, Russia, August 18-26)}, editor = {B.~Meyer and L.~Baresi and M.~Mezini}, pages = {389-399}, year = {2013}, publisher = {ACM}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1145/2491411.2491429}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-reuse/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-FSE.Precision_Reuse_for_Efficient_Regression_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are reasonably small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems created from 62 Linux kernel device drivers with 1119 revisions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
97. Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler. Reuse of Verification Results: Conditional Model Checking, Precision Reuse, and Verification Witnesses. In E. Bartocci and C. R. Ramakrishnan, editors, Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN 2013, Stony Brook, NY, USA, July 8-9), LNCS 7976, pages 1-17, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39176-7_1 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Verification is a complex algorithmic task, requiring large amounts of computing resources. One approach to reduce the resource consumption is to reuse information from previous verification runs. This paper gives an overview of three techniques for such information reuse. Conditional model checking outputs a condition that describes the state space that was successfully verified, and accepts as input a condition that instructs the model checker which parts of the system should be verified; thus, later verification runs can use the output condition of previous runs in order to not verify again parts of the state space that were already verified. Precision reuse is a technique to use intermediate results from previous verification runs to accelerate further verification runs of the system; information about the level of abstraction in the abstract model can be reused in later verification runs. Typical model checkers provide an error path through the system as witness for having proved that a system violates a property, and a few model checkers provide some kind of proof certificate as a witness for the correctness of the system; these witnesses should be such that the verifiers can read them and -with less computational effort- (re-) verify that the witness is valid.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{SPIN13, author = {Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Reuse of Verification Results: Conditional Model Checking, Precision Reuse, and Verification Witnesses}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN~2013, Stony Brook, NY, USA, July 8-9)}, editor = {E.~Bartocci and C.~R.~Ramakrishnan}, pages = {1-17}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7976}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-39176-7_1}, sha256 = {}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-reuse-gen/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-SPIN.Reuse_of_Verification_Results.pdf}, abstract = {Verification is a complex algorithmic task, requiring large amounts of computing resources. One approach to reduce the resource consumption is to reuse information from previous verification runs. This paper gives an overview of three techniques for such information reuse. Conditional model checking outputs a condition that describes the state space that was successfully verified, and accepts as input a condition that instructs the model checker which parts of the system should be verified; thus, later verification runs can use the output condition of previous runs in order to not verify again parts of the state space that were already verified. Precision reuse is a technique to use intermediate results from previous verification runs to accelerate further verification runs of the system; information about the level of abstraction in the abstract model can be reused in later verification runs. Typical model checkers provide an error path through the system as witness for having proved that a system violates a property, and a few model checkers provide some kind of proof certificate as a witness for the correctness of the system; these witnesses should be such that the verifiers can read them and ---with less computational effort--- (re-) verify that the witness is valid.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
98. Sven Apel, Alexander von Rhein, Philipp Wendler, Armin Größlinger, and Dirk Beyer. Strategies for Product-Line Verification: Case Studies and Experiments. In D. Notkin, B. H. C. Cheng, and K. Pohl, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26), pages 482-491, 2013. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606594 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    Product-line technology is increasingly used in mission-critical and safety-critical applications. Hence, researchers are developing verification approaches that follow different strategies to cope with the specific properties of product lines. While the research community is discussing the mutual strengths and weaknesses of the different strategies-mostly at a conceptual level-there is a lack of evidence in terms of case studies, tool implementations, and experiments. We have collected and prepared six product lines as subject systems for experimentation. Furthermore, we have developed a model-checking tool chain for C-based and Java-based product lines, called SPLverifier, which we use to compare sample-based and family-based strategies with regard to verification performance and the ability to find defects. Based on the experimental results and an analytical model, we revisit the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of product-line-verification strategies.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{ICSE13, author = {Sven Apel and Alexander von Rhein and Philipp Wendler and Armin Gr{\"o}{\ss}linger and Dirk Beyer}, title = {Strategies for Product-Line Verification: Case Studies and Experiments}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2013, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26)}, editor = {D.~Notkin and B.~H.~C.~Cheng and K.~Pohl}, pages = {482-491}, year = {2013}, publisher = {IEEE}, isbn = {978-1-4673-3076-3}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606594}, url = {http://fosd.net/FAV}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-ICSE.Strategies_for_Product-Line_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {Product-line technology is increasingly used in mission-critical and safety-critical applications. Hence, researchers are developing verification approaches that follow different strategies to cope with the specific properties of product lines. While the research community is discussing the mutual strengths and weaknesses of the different strategies---mostly at a conceptual level---there is a lack of evidence in terms of case studies, tool implementations, and experiments. We have collected and prepared six product lines as subject systems for experimentation. Furthermore, we have developed a model-checking tool chain for C-based and Java-based product lines, called SPLverifier, which we use to compare sample-based and family-based strategies with regard to verification performance and the ability to find defects. Based on the experimental results and an analytical model, we revisit the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of product-line--verification strategies.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
99. Dirk Beyer. Second Competition on Software Verification (Summary of SV-COMP 2013). In N. Piterman and S. Smolka, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24), LNCS 7795, pages 594-609, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_43 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract

    This report describes the 2nd International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2013), which is the second edition of this thorough evaluation of fully automatic verifiers for software programs. The reported results represent the 2012 state-of-the-art in automatic software verification, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The benchmark set of verification tasks consists of eleven categories containing a total of 2315 programs, written in C, and exposing features of integers, heap-data structures, bit-vector operations, and concurrency; the properties include reachability and memory safety. The competition is again organized as a satellite event of TACAS.
    BibTeX Entry

    @inproceedings{TACAS13, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Second Competition on Software Verification ({S}ummary of {SV-COMP} 2013)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24)}, editor = {N.~Piterman and S.~Smolka}, pages = {594-609}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7795}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-36741-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_43}, sha256 = {a9a0e10c91869f8d855f4c54534d64370dfec39791cd7befacd5c775a99a4ea9}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2013/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-TACAS.Second_Competition_on_Software_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {This report describes the 2nd International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2013), which is the second edition of this thorough evaluation of fully automatic verifiers for software programs. The reported results represent the 2012 state-of-the-art in automatic software verification, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The benchmark set of verification tasks consists of eleven categories containing a total of 2315 programs, written in C, and exposing features of integers, heap-data structures, bit-vector operations, and concurrency; the properties include reachability and memory safety. The competition is again organized as a satellite event of TACAS.}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, }
100. Dirk Beyer, Andreas Holzer, Michael Tautschnig, and Helmut Veith. Information Reuse for Multi-goal Reachability Analyses. In M. Felleisen and P. Gardner, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd European Symposium on Programming (ESOP 2013, Rome, Italy, March 19-22), LNCS 7792, pages 472-491, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_26 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
     Abstract

     It is known that model checkers can generate test inputs as witnesses for reachability specifications (or, equivalently, as counterexamples for safety properties). While this use of model checkers for testing yields a theoretically sound test-generation procedure, it scales poorly for computing complex test suites for large sets of test goals, because each test goal requires an expensive run of the model checker. We represent test goals as automata and exploit relations between automata in order to reuse existing reachability information for the analysis of subsequent test goals. Exploiting the sharing of sub-automata in a series of reachability queries, we achieve considerable performance improvements over the standard approach. We show the practical use of our multi-goal reachability analysis in a predicate-abstraction-based test-input generator for the test-specification language FQL.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{ESOP13, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Holzer and Michael Tautschnig and Helmut Veith}, title = {Information Reuse for Multi-goal Reachability Analyses}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd European Symposium on Programming (ESOP~2013, Rome, Italy, March 19-22)}, editor = {M.~Felleisen and P.~Gardner}, pages = {472-491}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7792}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-37035-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-37036-6_26}, sha256 = {9112a1c10c81e5aa3948a3a66bfd5ae1ab0d3c08186a67329fcf3efbb7f4d406}, url = {}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2013-03-21_ESOP13_InformationReuse_Andreas.pdf}, abstract = {It is known that model checkers can generate test inputs as witnesses for reachability specifications (or, equivalently, as counterexamples for safety properties). While this use of model checkers for testing yields a theoretically sound test-generation procedure, it scales poorly for computing complex test suites for large sets of test goals, because each test goal requires an expensive run of the model checker. We represent test goals as automata and exploit relations between automata in order to reuse existing reachability information for the analysis of subsequent test goals. Exploiting the sharing of sub-automata in a series of reachability queries, we achieve considerable performance improvements over the standard approach. We show the practical use of our multi-goal reachability analysis in a predicate-abstraction-based test-input generator for the test-specification language FQL.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
101. Dirk Beyer and Stefan Löwe. Explicit-State Software Model Checking Based on CEGAR and Interpolation. In V. Cortellessa and D. Varro, editors, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2013, Rome, Italy, March 20-22), LNCS 7793, pages 146-162, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_11 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     Abstraction, counterexample-guided refinement, and interpolation are techniques that are essential to the success of predicate-based program analysis. These techniques have not yet been applied together to explicit-value program analysis. We present an approach that integrates abstraction and interpolation-based refinement into an explicit-value analysis, i.e., a program analysis that tracks explicit values for a specified set of variables (the precision). The algorithm uses an abstract reachability graph as central data structure and a path-sensitive dynamic approach for precision adjustment. We evaluate our algorithm on the benchmark set of the Competition on Software Verification 2012 (SV-COMP'12) to show that our new approach is highly competitive. We also show that combining our new approach with an auxiliary predicate analysis scores significantly higher than the SV-COMP'12 winner.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FASE13, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we}, title = {Explicit-State Software Model Checking Based on {CEGAR} and Interpolation}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2013, Rome, Italy, March 20-22)}, editor = {V.~Cortellessa and D.~Varro}, pages = {146-162}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7793}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-37056-4}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_11}, sha256 = {3e2ba52da100fd835736b3673fa47a3429522dd3f4c0834b13f29d6a68a8bd45}, url = {}, abstract = {Abstraction, counterexample-guided refinement, and interpolation are techniques that are essential to the success of predicate-based program analysis. These techniques have not yet been applied together to explicit-value program analysis. We present an approach that integrates abstraction and interpolation-based refinement into an explicit-value analysis, i.e., a program analysis that tracks explicit values for a specified set of variables (the precision). The algorithm uses an abstract reachability graph as central data structure and a path-sensitive dynamic approach for precision adjustment. We evaluate our algorithm on the benchmark set of the Competition on Software Verification 2012 (SV-COMP'12) to show that our new approach is highly competitive. We also show that combining our new approach with an auxiliary predicate analysis scores significantly higher than the SV-COMP'12 winner.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
102. Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer. BDD-Based Software Model Checking with CPAchecker. In A. Kucera et al., editors, Proceedings of the Annual Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS 2012, Znojmo, Czech Republic, October 26-28), LNCS 7721, pages 1-11, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36046-6_1 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{MEMICS12, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {{BDD}-Based Software Model Checking with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Annual Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS~2012, Znojmo, Czech Republic, October 26-28)}, editor = {A.~Kucera~et~al.}, pages = {1-11}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7721}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-36044-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36046-6_1}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-MEMICS.BDD-Based_Software_Model_Checking_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
103. Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker with Sequential Combination of Explicit-State Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution). In N. Piterman and S. Smolka, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24), LNCS 7795, pages 613-615, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_45 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     CPAchecker is an open-source framework for software verification, based on the concepts of configurable program analysis (CPA). We submit a CPAchecker configuration that uses a sequential combination of two approaches. It starts with an explicit-state analysis, and, if no answer can be found within some time, switches to a predicate analysis with adjustable-block encoding and CEGAR.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CPACHECKERSEQCOM-COMP13, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Sequential Combination of Explicit-State Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24)}, editor = {N.~Piterman and S.~Smolka}, pages = {613-615}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7795}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-36741-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_45}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_45}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2013-TACAS.CPAchecker_with_Sequential_Combination_of_Explicit-State_Analysis_and_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {CPAchecker is an open-source framework for software verification, based on the concepts of configurable program analysis (CPA). We submit a CPAchecker configuration that uses a sequential combination of two approaches. It starts with an explicit-state analysis, and, if no answer can be found within some time, switches to a predicate analysis with adjustable-block encoding and CEGAR.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won category Overall and received five bronze medals in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2013/">SV-COMP'13</a></span>}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won category Overall and received five bronze medals in SV-COMP'13
104. Stefan Löwe. CPAchecker with Explicit-Value Analysis Based on CEGAR and Interpolation (Competition Contribution). In N. Piterman and S. Smolka, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24), LNCS 7795, pages 610-612, 2013. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_44 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CPACHECKEREXPLICIT-COMP13, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Explicit-Value Analysis Based on {CEGAR} and Interpolation (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24)}, editor = {N.~Piterman and S.~Smolka}, pages = {610-612}, year = {2013}, series = {LNCS~7795}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-642-36741-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_44}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_44}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Received four silver medals in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2013/">SV-COMP'13</a></span>}, }
     Additional Infos

     Received four silver medals in SV-COMP'13
105. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Philipp Wendler. Conditional Model Checking: A Technique to Pass Information between Verifiers. In Tevfik Bultan and Martin Robillard, editors, Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2012, Cary, NC, November 10-17), 2012. ACM. doi:10.1145/2393596.2393664 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P -usually a state predicate- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P -that is, as long as the program does not leave the states in which P is satisfied. In our experiments, we investigated as one major application of conditional model checking the sequential combination of model checkers with information passing. We give the condition that one model checker produces, as input to a second conditional model checker, such that the verification problem for the second is restricted to the part of the state space that is not covered by the condition, i.e., the second model checker works on the problems that the first model checker could not solve. Our experiments demonstrate that repeated application of conditional model checkers, passing information from one model checker to the next, can significantly improve the verification results and performance, i.e., we can now verify programs that we could not verify before.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FSE12, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and M. Erkan Keremoglu and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Conditional Model Checking: {A} Technique to Pass Information between Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE~2012, Cary, NC, November 10-17)}, editor = {Tevfik Bultan and Martin Robillard}, pages = {}, year = {2012}, publisher = {ACM}, isbn = {978-1-4503-1614-9}, doi = {10.1145/2393596.2393664}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-cmc/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-FSE.Conditional_Model_Checking.pdf}, abstract = {Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P ---usually a state predicate--- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P ---that is, as long as the program does not leave the states in which P is satisfied. In our experiments, we investigated as one major application of conditional model checking the sequential combination of model checkers with information passing. We give the condition that one model checker produces, as input to a second conditional model checker, such that the verification problem for the second is restricted to the part of the state space that is not covered by the condition, i.e., the second model checker works on the problems that the first model checker could not solve. Our experiments demonstrate that repeated application of conditional model checkers, passing information from one model checker to the next, can significantly improve the verification results and performance, i.e., we can now verify programs that we could not verify before.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
106. Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler. Algorithms for Software Model Checking: Predicate Abstraction vs. IMPACT. In Gianpiero Cabodi and Satnam Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD 2012, Cambrige, UK, October 22-25), pages 106-113, 2012. FMCAD. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     CEGAR, SMT solving, and Craig interpolation are successful approaches for software model checking. We compare two of the most important algorithms that are based on these techniques: lazy predicate abstraction (as in BLAST) and lazy abstraction with interpolants (as in IMPACT). We unify the algorithms formally (by expressing both in the CPA framework) as well as in practice (by implementing them in the same tool). This allows us to flexibly experiment with new configurations and gain new insights, both about their most important differences and commonalities, as well as about their performance characteristics. We show that the essential contribution of the IMPACT algorithm is the reduction of the number of refinements, and compare this to another approach for reducing refinement effort: adjustable-block encoding (ABE).
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FMCAD12, author = {Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Algorithms for Software Model Checking: Predicate Abstraction vs. {IMPACT}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD~2012, Cambrige, UK, October 22-25)}, editor = {Gianpiero Cabodi and Satnam Singh}, pages = {106-113}, year = {2012}, publisher = {FMCAD}, isbn = {978-1-4673-4831-7}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-uni/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-FMCAD.Algorithms_for_Software_Model_Checking.pdf}, abstract = {CEGAR, SMT solving, and Craig interpolation are successful approaches for software model checking. We compare two of the most important algorithms that are based on these techniques: lazy predicate abstraction (as in BLAST) and lazy abstraction with interpolants (as in IMPACT). We unify the algorithms formally (by expressing both in the CPA framework) as well as in practice (by implementing them in the same tool). This allows us to flexibly experiment with new configurations and gain new insights, both about their most important differences and commonalities, as well as about their performance characteristics. We show that the essential contribution of the IMPACT algorithm is the reduction of the number of refinements, and compare this to another approach for reducing refinement effort: adjustable-block encoding (ABE).}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6462562/}, }
107. Dirk Beyer. Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). In C. Flanagan and B. König, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30), LNCS 7214, pages 504-524, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_38 Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     This report describes the definitions, rules, setup, procedure, and results of the 1st International Competition on Software Verification. The verification community has performed competitions in various areas in the past, and SV-COMP'12 is the first competition of verification tools that take software programs as input and run a fully automatic verification of a given safety property. This year's competition is organized as a satellite event of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS).
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{TACAS12, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Competition on Software Verification ({SV-COMP})}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30)}, editor = {C.~Flanagan and B.~K{\"o}nig}, pages = {504--524}, year = {2012}, series = {LNCS~7214}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_38}, sha256 = {77183c925bfa38fdd3cae2f65ed8d94aceb39a0805bad96adec5e4e70048e49b}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2012/}, abstract = {This report describes the definitions, rules, setup, procedure, and results of the 1st International Competition on Software Verification. The verification community has performed competitions in various areas in the past, and SV-COMP'12 is the first competition of verification tools that take software programs as input and run a fully automatic verification of a given safety property. This year's competition is organized as a satellite event of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS).}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, }
108. Dirk Beyer and Alexander K. Petrenko. Linux Driver Verification. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2012, Part II, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18), LNCS 7610, pages 1-6, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34032-1_1 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{LDV12, author = {Dirk Beyer and Alexander K. Petrenko}, title = {{Linux} Driver Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2012, Part II, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {1-6}, year = {2012}, series = {LNCS~7610}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-34032-1_1}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-ISOLA.Linux_Driver_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
109. Falk Howar, Malte Isberner, Maik Merten, Bernhard Steffen, and Dirk Beyer. The RERS Grey-Box Challenge 2012: Analysis of Event-Condition-Action Systems. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2012, Part I, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18), LNCS 7609, pages 608-614, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_45 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{RERS12, author = {Falk Howar and Malte Isberner and Maik Merten and Bernhard Steffen and Dirk Beyer}, title = {The {RERS} Grey-Box Challenge 2012: Analysis of Event-Condition-Action Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2012, Part I, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {608-614}, year = {2012}, series = {LNCS~7609}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_45}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-ISOLA.The_RERS_Grey-Box_Challenge_2012_Analysis_of_Event-Condition-Action_Systems.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
110. Stefan Löwe and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker with Adjustable Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution). In C. Flanagan and B. König, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30), LNCS 7214, pages 528-530, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_40 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     CPAchecker is a freely available software-verification framework, built on the concepts of configurable program analysis (CPA). CPAchecker integrates most of the state-of-the-art technologies for software model checking, such as counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), lazy predicate abstraction, interpolation-based refinement, and large-block encoding. The CPA for predicate analysis with adjustable-block encoding (ABE) is very promising in many categories, and thus, we submit a CPAchecker configuration that uses this analysis approach to the competition.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CPACHECKERABE-COMP12, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Adjustable Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30)}, editor = {C.~Flanagan and B.~K{\"o}nig}, pages = {528--530}, year = {2012}, series = {LNCS~7214}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_40}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_40}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-TACAS.CPAchecker_with_Adjustable_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {CPAchecker is a freely available software-verification framework, built on the concepts of configurable program analysis (CPA). CPAchecker integrates most of the state-of-the-art technologies for software model checking, such as counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), lazy predicate abstraction, interpolation-based refinement, and large-block encoding. The CPA for predicate analysis with adjustable-block encoding (ABE) is very promising in many categories, and thus, we submit a CPAchecker configuration that uses this analysis approach to the competition.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won category ControlFlowInteger and received one silver and two bronze medals in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2012/">SV-COMP'12</a></span>}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won category ControlFlowInteger and received one silver and two bronze medals in SV-COMP'12
111. Sven Apel, Hendrik Speidel, Philipp Wendler, Alexander von Rhein, and Dirk Beyer. Detection of Feature Interactions using Feature-Aware Verification. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011, Lawrence, KS, November 6-10), pages 372-375, 2011. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE.2011.6100075 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     A software product line is a set of software products that are distinguished in terms of features (i.e., end-user-visible units of behavior). Feature interactions -situations in which the combination of features leads to emergent and possibly critical behavior- are a major source of failures in software product lines. We explore how feature-aware verification can improve the automatic detection of feature interactions in software product lines. Feature-aware verification uses product-line-verification techniques and supports the specification of feature properties along with the features in separate and composable units. It integrates the technique of variability encoding to verify a product line without generating and checking a possibly exponential number of feature combinations. We developed the tool suite SPLverifier for feature-aware verification, which is based on standard model-checking technology. We applied it to an e-mail system that incorporates domain knowledge of AT&T. We found that feature interactions can be detected automatically based on specifications that have only local knowledge.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{ASE11, author = {Sven Apel and Hendrik Speidel and Philipp Wendler and Alexander von Rhein and Dirk Beyer}, title = {Detection of Feature Interactions using Feature-Aware Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE~2011, Lawrence, KS, November 6-10)}, pages = {372-375}, year = {2011}, publisher = {IEEE}, isbn = {978-1-4577-1639-3}, doi = {10.1109/ASE.2011.6100075}, url = {http://fosd.net/FAV}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2011-ASE.Detection_of_Feature_Interactions_using_Feature-Aware_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {A software product line is a set of software products that are distinguished in terms of features (i.e., end-user--visible units of behavior). Feature interactions ---situations in which the combination of features leads to emergent and possibly critical behavior--- are a major source of failures in software product lines. We explore how feature-aware verification can improve the automatic detection of feature interactions in software product lines. Feature-aware verification uses product-line--verification techniques and supports the specification of feature properties along with the features in separate and composable units. It integrates the technique of variability encoding to verify a product line without generating and checking a possibly exponential number of feature combinations. We developed the tool suite SPLverifier for feature-aware verification, which is based on standard model-checking technology. We applied it to an e-mail system that incorporates domain knowledge of AT&T. We found that feature interactions can be detected automatically based on specifications that have only local knowledge.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
112. Dirk Beyer and M. Erkan Keremoglu. CPAchecker: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification. In G. Gopalakrishnan and S. Qadeer, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2011, Snowbird, UT, July 14-20), LNCS 6806, pages 184-190, 2011. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Configurable software verification is a recent concept for expressing different program analysis and model checking approaches in one single formalism. This paper presents CPAchecker, a tool and framework that aims at easy integration of new verification components. Every abstract domain, together with the corresponding operations, implements the interface of configurable program analysis (CPA). The main algorithm is configurable to perform a reachability analysis on arbitrary combinations of existing CPAs. In software verification, it takes a considerable amount of effort to convert a verification idea into actual experimental results - we aim at accelerating this process. We hope that researchers find it convenient and productive to implement new verification ideas and algorithms using this flexible and easy-to-extend platform, and that it advances the field by making it easier to perform practical experiments. The tool is implemented in Java and runs as command-line tool or as Eclipse plug-in. CPAchecker implements CPAs for several abstract domains. We evaluate the efficiency of the current version of our tool on software-verification benchmarks from the literature, and compare it with other state-of-the-art model checkers. CPAchecker is an open-source toolkit and publicly available.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CAV11, author = {Dirk Beyer and M. Erkan Keremoglu}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}}: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2011, Snowbird, UT, July 14-20)}, editor = {G.~Gopalakrishnan and S.~Qadeer}, pages = {184-190}, year = {2011}, series = {LNCS~6806}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-22109-5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16}, sha256 = {0b9016de32b714f799da2cf19d3bf8f96cc33069db70beb2e22bbca07c58e2ee}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, abstract = {Configurable software verification is a recent concept for expressing different program analysis and model checking approaches in one single formalism. This paper presents CPAchecker, a tool and framework that aims at easy integration of new verification components. Every abstract domain, together with the corresponding operations, implements the interface of configurable program analysis (CPA). The main algorithm is configurable to perform a reachability analysis on arbitrary combinations of existing CPAs. In software verification, it takes a considerable amount of effort to convert a verification idea into actual experimental results --- we aim at accelerating this process. We hope that researchers find it convenient and productive to implement new verification ideas and algorithms using this flexible and easy-to-extend platform, and that it advances the field by making it easier to perform practical experiments. The tool is implemented in Java and runs as command-line tool or as Eclipse plug-in. CPAchecker implements CPAs for several abstract domains. We evaluate the efficiency of the current version of our tool on software-verification benchmarks from the literature, and compare it with other state-of-the-art model checkers. CPAchecker is an open-source toolkit and publicly available.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
113. Dirk Beyer, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Philipp Wendler. Predicate Abstraction with Adjustable-Block Encoding. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD 2010, Lugano, October 20-23), pages 189-197, 2010. FMCAD. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Several successful software model checkers are based on a technique called single-block encoding (SBE), which computes costly predicate abstractions after every single program operation. Large-block encoding (LBE) computes abstractions only after a large number of operations, and it was shown that this significantly improves the verification performance. In this work, we present adjustable-block encoding (ABE), a unifying framework that allows to express both previous approaches. In addition, it provides the flexibility to specify any block size between SBE and LBE, and also beyond LBE, through the adjustment of one single parameter. Such a unification of different concepts makes it easier to understand the fundamental properties of the analysis, and makes the differences of the variants more explicit. We evaluate different configurations on example C programs, and identify one that is currently the best.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FMCAD10, author = {Dirk Beyer and M.~Erkan Keremoglu and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Predicate Abstraction with Adjustable-Block Encoding}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD~2010, Lugano, October 20-23)}, pages = {189-197}, year = {2010}, publisher = {FMCAD}, isbn = {}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-abe/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2010-FMCAD.Predicate_Abstraction_with_Adjustable-Block_Encoding.pdf}, abstract = {Several successful software model checkers are based on a technique called single-block encoding (SBE), which computes costly predicate abstractions after every single program operation. Large-block encoding (LBE) computes abstractions only after a large number of operations, and it was shown that this significantly improves the verification performance. In this work, we present adjustable-block encoding (ABE), a unifying framework that allows to express both previous approaches. In addition, it provides the flexibility to specify any block size between SBE and LBE, and also beyond LBE, through the adjustment of one single parameter. Such a unification of different concepts makes it easier to understand the fundamental properties of the analysis, and makes the differences of the variants more explicit. We evaluate different configurations on example C programs, and identify one that is currently the best.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the NRW Young Scientist Award 2010 in Dynamic Intelligent Systems}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5770949/}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won the NRW Young Scientist Award 2010 in Dynamic Intelligent Systems
114. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Grégory Théoduloz, and Damien Zufferey. Shape Refinement through Explicit Heap Analysis. In D.S. Rosenblum and G. Taentzer, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2010, Paphos, Cyprus, March 22-26), LNCS 6013, pages 263-277, 2010. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12029-9_19 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     Shape analysis is a promising technique to prove program properties about recursive data structures. The challenge is to automatically determine the data-structure type, and to supply the shape analysis with the necessary information about the data structure. We present a stepwise approach to the selection of instrumentation predicates for a TVLA-based shape analysis, which takes us a step closer towards the fully automatic verification of data structures. The approach uses two techniques to guide the refinement of shape abstractions: (1) during program exploration, an explicit heap analysis collects sample instances of the heap structures, which are used to identify the data structures that are manipulated by the program; and (2) during abstraction refinement along an infeasible error path, we consider different possible heap abstractions and choose the coarsest one that eliminates the infeasible path. We have implemented this combined approach for automatic shape refinement as an extension of the software model checker BLAST. Example programs from a data-structure library that manipulate doubly-linked lists and trees were successfully verified by our tool.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FASE10, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz and Damien Zufferey}, title = {Shape Refinement through Explicit Heap Analysis}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2010, Paphos, Cyprus, March 22-26)}, editor = {D.S.~Rosenblum and G.~Taentzer}, pages = {263-277}, year = {2010}, series = {LNCS~6013}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-642-12028-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-12029-9_19}, sha256 = {60468f681028a3ac427897405ee5c99894c5baa340896454d378d55267be304f}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2010-FASE.Shape_Refinement_through_Explicit_Heap_Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {Shape analysis is a promising technique to prove program properties about recursive data structures. The challenge is to automatically determine the data-structure type, and to supply the shape analysis with the necessary information about the data structure. We present a stepwise approach to the selection of instrumentation predicates for a TVLA-based shape analysis, which takes us a step closer towards the fully automatic verification of data structures. The approach uses two techniques to guide the refinement of shape abstractions: (1) during program exploration, an explicit heap analysis collects sample instances of the heap structures, which are used to identify the data structures that are manipulated by the program; and (2) during abstraction refinement along an infeasible error path, we consider different possible heap abstractions and choose the coarsest one that eliminates the infeasible path. We have implemented this combined approach for automatic shape refinement as an extension of the software model checker BLAST. Example programs from a data-structure library that manipulate doubly-linked lists and trees were successfully verified by our tool.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, }
115. Dirk Beyer, Alessandro Cimatti, Alberto Griggio, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Roberto Sebastiani. Software Model Checking via Large-Block Encoding. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD 2009, Austin, TX, November 15-18), pages 25-32, 2009. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (CA). doi:10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     Several successful approaches to software verification are based on the construction and analysis of an abstract reachability tree (ART). The ART represents unwindings of the control-flow graph of the program. Traditionally, a transition of the ART represents a single block of the program, and therefore, we call this approach single-block encoding (SBE). SBE may result in a huge number of program paths to be explored, which constitutes a fundamental source of inefficiency. We propose a generalization of the approach, in which transitions of the ART represent larger portions of the program; we call this approach large-block encoding (LBE). LBE may reduce the number of paths to be explored up to exponentially. Within this framework, we also investigate symbolic representations: for representing abstract states, in addition to conjunctions as used in SBE, we investigate the use of arbitrary Boolean formulas; for computing abstract-successor states, in addition to Cartesian predicate abstraction as used in SBE, we investigate the use of Boolean predicate abstraction. The new encoding leverages the efficiency of state-of-the-art SMT solvers, which can symbolically compute abstract large-block successors. Our experiments on benchmark C programs show that the large-block encoding outperforms the single-block encoding.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FMCAD09, author = {Dirk Beyer and Alessandro Cimatti and Alberto Griggio and M.~Erkan Keremoglu and Roberto Sebastiani}, title = {Software Model Checking via Large-Block Encoding}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD~2009, Austin, TX, November 15-18)}, pages = {25-32}, year = {2009}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos~(CA)}, isbn = {978-1-4244-4966-8}, doi = {10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2009-FMCAD.Software_Model_Checking_via_Large-Block_Encoding.pdf}, abstract = {Several successful approaches to software verification are based on the construction and analysis of an abstract reachability tree (ART). The ART represents unwindings of the control-flow graph of the program. Traditionally, a transition of the ART represents a single block of the program, and therefore, we call this approach single-block encoding (SBE). SBE may result in a huge number of program paths to be explored, which constitutes a fundamental source of inefficiency. We propose a generalization of the approach, in which transitions of the ART represent larger portions of the program; we call this approach large-block encoding (LBE). LBE may reduce the number of paths to be explored up to exponentially. Within this framework, we also investigate symbolic representations: for representing abstract states, in addition to conjunctions as used in SBE, we investigate the use of arbitrary Boolean formulas; for computing abstract-successor states, in addition to Cartesian predicate abstraction as used in SBE, we investigate the use of Boolean predicate abstraction. The new encoding leverages the efficiency of state-of-the-art SMT solvers, which can symbolically compute abstract large-block successors. Our experiments on benchmark C programs show that the large-block encoding outperforms the single-block encoding.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
116. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Grégory Théoduloz. Program Analysis with Dynamic Precision Adjustment. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2008, L'Aquila, September 15-19), pages 29-38, 2008. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (CA). doi:10.1109/ASE.2008.13 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
     Abstract

     We present and evaluate a framework and tool for combining multiple program analyses which allows the dynamic (on-line) adjustment of the precision of each analysis depending on the accumulated results. For example, the explicit tracking of the values of a variable may be switched off in favor of a predicate abstraction when and where the number of different variable values that have been encountered has exceeded a specified threshold. The method is evaluated on verifying the SSH client/server software and shows significant gains compared with predicate abstraction-based model checking.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{ASE08, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Program Analysis with Dynamic Precision Adjustment}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE~2008, L'Aquila, September 15-19)}, pages = {29-38}, year = {2008}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos~(CA)}, isbn = {978-1-4244-2187-9}, doi = {10.1109/ASE.2008.13}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2008-ASE.Program_Analysis_with_Dynamic_Precision_Adjustment.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2009-04-16_UCB_CPAplus.pdf}, abstract = {We present and evaluate a framework and tool for combining multiple program analyses which allows the dynamic (on-line) adjustment of the precision of each analysis depending on the accumulated results. For example, the explicit tracking of the values of a variable may be switched off in favor of a predicate abstraction when and where the number of different variable values that have been encountered has exceeded a specified threshold. The method is evaluated on verifying the SSH client/server software and shows significant gains compared with predicate abstraction-based model checking.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
117. Dirk Beyer, Damien Zufferey, and Rupak Majumdar. CSIsat: Interpolation for LA+EUF. In A. Gupta and S. Malik, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2008, Princeton, NY, July 7-14), LNCS 5123, pages 304-308, 2008. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_29 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     We present CSIsat, an interpolating decision procedure for the quantifier-free theory of rational linear arithmetic and equality with uninterpreted function symbols. Our implementation combines the efficiency of linear programming for solving the arithmetic part with the efficiency of a SAT solver to reason about the boolean structure. We evaluate the efficiency of our tool on benchmarks from software verification. Binaries and the source code of CSIsat are publicly available as free software.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CAV08, author = {Dirk Beyer and Damien Zufferey and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {{{\sc CSIsat}}: Interpolation for {LA+EUF}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2008, Princeton, NY, July 7-14)}, editor = {A.~Gupta and S.~Malik}, pages = {304-308}, year = {2008}, series = {LNCS~5123}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-540-70543-7}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-70545-1_29}, sha256 = {5fc10da29ed7a1c90589b1c2080f5b347404b56107364e608b25d10f4b48161f}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/CSIsat/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2008-CAV.CSIsat_Interpolation_for_LA_EUF.pdf}, abstract = {We present CSIsat, an interpolating decision procedure for the quantifier-free theory of rational linear arithmetic and equality with uninterpreted function symbols. Our implementation combines the efficiency of linear programming for solving the arithmetic part with the efficiency of a SAT solver to reason about the boolean structure. We evaluate the efficiency of our tool on benchmarks from software verification. Binaries and the source code of CSIsat are publicly available as free software.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
118. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Vasu Singh. Algorithms for Interface Synthesis. In W. Damm and H. Hermanns, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2007, Berlin, July 3-7), LNCS 4590, pages 4-19, 2007. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_4 Keyword(s): Interfaces for Component-Based Design, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     A temporal interface for a software component is a finite automaton that specifies the legal sequences of calls to functions that are provided by the component. We compare and evaluate three different algorithms for automatically extracting temporal interfaces from program code: (1) a game algorithm that computes the interface as a representation of the most general environment strategy to avoid a safety violation; (2) a learning algorithm that repeatedly queries the program to construct the minimal interface automaton; and (3) a CEGAR algorithm that iteratively refines an abstract interface hypothesis by adding relevant program variables. For comparison purposes, we present and implement the three algorithms in a unifying formal setting. While the three algorithms compute the same output and have similar worst-case complexities, their actual running times may differ considerably for a given input program. On the theoretical side, we provide for each of the three algorithms a family of input programs on which that algorithm outperforms the two alternatives. On the practical side, we evaluate the three algorithms experimentally on a variety of Java libraries.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CAV07b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Vasu Singh}, title = {Algorithms for Interface Synthesis}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2007, Berlin, July 3-7)}, editor = {W.~Damm and H.~Hermanns}, pages = {4-19}, year = {2007}, series = {LNCS~4590}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-540-73367-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_4}, sha256 = {c8d7d6300d354fb38917b44cb9fbd3ebbad1737d75107ccc124af001677679ec}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-CAV.Algorithms_for_Interface_Synthesis.pdf}, abstract = {A temporal interface for a software component is a finite automaton that specifies the legal sequences of calls to functions that are provided by the component. We compare and evaluate three different algorithms for automatically extracting temporal interfaces from program code: (1) a game algorithm that computes the interface as a representation of the most general environment strategy to avoid a safety violation; (2) a learning algorithm that repeatedly queries the program to construct the minimal interface automaton; and (3) a CEGAR algorithm that iteratively refines an abstract interface hypothesis by adding relevant program variables. For comparison purposes, we present and implement the three algorithms in a unifying formal setting. While the three algorithms compute the same output and have similar worst-case complexities, their actual running times may differ considerably for a given input program. On the theoretical side, we provide for each of the three algorithms a family of input programs on which that algorithm outperforms the two alternatives. On the practical side, we evaluate the three algorithms experimentally on a variety of Java libraries.}, keyword = {Interfaces for Component-Based Design,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
119. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Grégory Théoduloz. Configurable Software Verification: Concretizing the Convergence of Model Checking and Program Analysis. In W. Damm and H. Hermanns, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2007, Berlin, July 3-7), LNCS 4590, pages 504-518, 2007. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
     Abstract

     In automatic software verification, we have observed a theoretical convergence of model checking and program analysis. In practice, however, model checkers are still mostly concerned with precision, e.g., the removal of spurious counterexamples; for this purpose they build and refine reachability trees. Lattice-based program analyzers, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with efficiency. We designed an algorithm and built a tool that can be configured to perform not only a purely tree-based or a purely lattice-based analysis, but offers many intermediate settings that have not been evaluated before. The algorithm and tool take one or more abstract interpreters, such as a predicate abstraction and a shape analysis, and configure their execution and interaction using several parameters. Our experiments show that such customization may lead to dramatic improvements in the precision-efficiency spectrum.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CAV07a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Configurable Software Verification: Concretizing the Convergence of Model Checking and Program Analysis}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2007, Berlin, July 3-7)}, editor = {W.~Damm and H.~Hermanns}, pages = {504-518}, year = {2007}, series = {LNCS~4590}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-540-73367-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51}, sha256 = {1c5d0f57fdded4d659c5a86984e19307c50d7770442fa908db20430a22e4b276}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-CAV.Configurable_Software_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2007-07-07_CAV07_Configurable-Program-Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {In automatic software verification, we have observed a theoretical convergence of model checking and program analysis. In practice, however, model checkers are still mostly concerned with precision, e.g., the removal of spurious counterexamples; for this purpose they build and refine reachability trees. Lattice-based program analyzers, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with efficiency. We designed an algorithm and built a tool that can be configured to perform not only a purely tree-based or a purely lattice-based analysis, but offers many intermediate settings that have not been evaluated before. The algorithm and tool take one or more abstract interpreters, such as a predicate abstraction and a shape analysis, and configure their execution and interaction using several parameters. Our experiments show that such customization may lead to dramatic improvements in the precision-efficiency spectrum.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {<a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-CAV.Configurable_Software_Verification.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
     Additional Infos

     Errata available.
120. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Rupak Majumdar, and Andrey Rybalchenko. Path Invariants. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2007, San Diego, CA, June 10-13), pages 300-309, 2007. ACM Press, New York (NY). doi:10.1145/1250734.1250769 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     The success of software verification depends on the ability to find a suitable abstraction of a program automatically. We propose a method for automated abstraction refinement which overcomes some limitations of current predicate discovery schemes. In current schemes, the cause of a false alarm is identified as an infeasible error path, and the abstraction is refined in order to remove that path. By contrast, we view the cause of a false alarm -the spurious counterexample- as a full-fledged program, namely, a fragment of the original program whose control-flow graph may contain loops and represent unbounded computations. There are two advantages to using such path programs as counterexamples for abstraction refinement. First, we can bring the whole machinery of program analysis to bear on path programs, which are typically small compared to the original program. Specifically, we use constraint-based invariant generation to automatically infer invariants of path programs -so-called path invariants. Second, we use path invariants for abstraction refinement in order to remove not one infeasibility at a time, but at once all (possibly infinitely many) infeasible error computations that are represented by a path program. Unlike previous predicate discovery schemes, our method handles loops without unrolling them; it infers abstractions that involve universal quantification and naturally incorporates disjunctive reasoning.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{PLDI07, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Rupak Majumdar and Andrey Rybalchenko}, title = {Path Invariants}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI~2007, San Diego, CA, June 10-13)}, pages = {300-309}, year = {2007}, publisher = {ACM Press, New York~(NY)}, isbn = {978-1-59593-633-2}, doi = {10.1145/1250734.1250769}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-PLDI.Path_Invariants.pdf}, abstract = {The success of software verification depends on the ability to find a suitable abstraction of a program automatically. We propose a method for automated abstraction refinement which overcomes some limitations of current predicate discovery schemes. In current schemes, the cause of a false alarm is identified as an infeasible error path, and the abstraction is refined in order to remove that path. By contrast, we view the cause of a false alarm ---the spurious counterexample--- as a full-fledged program, namely, a fragment of the original program whose control-flow graph may contain loops and represent unbounded computations. There are two advantages to using such path programs as counterexamples for abstraction refinement. First, we can bring the whole machinery of program analysis to bear on path programs, which are typically small compared to the original program. Specifically, we use constraint-based invariant generation to automatically infer invariants of path programs ---so-called path invariants. Second, we use path invariants for abstraction refinement in order to remove not one infeasibility at a time, but at once all (possibly infinitely many) infeasible error computations that are represented by a path program. Unlike previous predicate discovery schemes, our method handles loops without unrolling them; it infers abstractions that involve universal quantification and naturally incorporates disjunctive reasoning.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUN0n23zVuw"> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUN0n23zVuw</a><BR>}, }
     Additional Infos

     Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUN0n23zVuw
     
121. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Rupak Majumdar, and Andrey Rybalchenko. Invariant Synthesis for Combined Theories. In B. Cook and A. Podelski, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2007, Nice, January 14-16), LNCS 4349, pages 378-394, 2007. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69738-1_27 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     We present a constraint-based algorithm for the synthesis of invariants expressed in the combined theory of linear arithmetic and uninterpreted function symbols. Given a set of programmer-specified invariant templates, our algorithm reduces the invariant synthesis problem to a sequence of arithmetic constraint satisfaction queries. Since the combination of linear arithmetic and uninterpreted functions is a widely applied predicate domain for program verification, our algorithm provides a powerful tool to statically and automatically reason about program correctness. The algorithm can also be used for the synthesis of invariants over arrays and set data structures, because satisfiability questions for the theories of sets and arrays can be reduced to the theory of linear arithmetic with uninterpreted functions. We have implemented our algorithm and used it to find invariants for a low-level memory allocator written in C.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{VMCAI07, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Rupak Majumdar and Andrey Rybalchenko}, title = {Invariant Synthesis for Combined Theories}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI~2007, Nice, January 14-16)}, editor = {B.~Cook and A.~Podelski}, pages = {378-394}, year = {2007}, series = {LNCS~4349}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-540-69735-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-69738-1_27}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2007-VMCAI.Invariant_Synthesis_for_Combined_Theories.pdf}, abstract = {We present a constraint-based algorithm for the synthesis of invariants expressed in the combined theory of linear arithmetic and uninterpreted function symbols. Given a set of programmer-specified invariant templates, our algorithm reduces the invariant synthesis problem to a sequence of arithmetic constraint satisfaction queries. Since the combination of linear arithmetic and uninterpreted functions is a widely applied predicate domain for program verification, our algorithm provides a powerful tool to statically and automatically reason about program correctness. The algorithm can also be used for the synthesis of invariants over arrays and set data structures, because satisfiability questions for the theories of sets and arrays can be reduced to the theory of linear arithmetic with uninterpreted functions. We have implemented our algorithm and used it to find invariants for a low-level memory allocator written in C.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
122. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Grégory Théoduloz. Lazy Shape Analysis. In T. Ball and R.B. Jones, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2006, Seattle, WA, August 17-20), LNCS 4144, pages 532-546, 2006. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/11817963_48 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Many software model checkers are based on predicate abstraction. If the verification goal depends on pointer structures, the approach does not work well, because it is difficult to find adequate predicate abstractions for the heap. In contrast, shape analysis, which uses graph-based heap abstractions, can provide a compact representation of recursive data structures. We integrate shape analysis into the software model checker BLAST. Because shape analysis is expensive, we do not apply it globally. Instead, we ensure that, like predicates, shape graphs are computed and stored locally, only where necessary for proving the verification goal. To achieve this, we extend lazy abstraction refinement, which so far has been used only for predicate abstractions, to three-valued logical structures. This approach does not only increase the precision of model checking, but it also increases the efficiency of shape analysis. We implemented the technique by extending BLAST with calls to TVLA.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{CAV06, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Lazy Shape Analysis}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2006, Seattle, WA, August 17-20)}, editor = {T.~Ball and R.B.~Jones}, pages = {532-546}, year = {2006}, series = {LNCS~4144}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {3-540-37406-X}, doi = {10.1007/11817963_48}, sha256 = {83aadf3fff8dfe5462691e635eb3f21fda3bd09638cf78a94d71ca87efbd5390}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/blast_sa/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2006-CAV.Lazy_Shape_Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {Many software model checkers are based on predicate abstraction. If the verification goal depends on pointer structures, the approach does not work well, because it is difficult to find adequate predicate abstractions for the heap. In contrast, shape analysis, which uses graph-based heap abstractions, can provide a compact representation of recursive data structures. We integrate shape analysis into the software model checker BLAST. Because shape analysis is expensive, we do not apply it globally. Instead, we ensure that, like predicates, shape graphs are computed and stored locally, only where necessary for proving the verification goal. To achieve this, we extend lazy abstraction refinement, which so far has been used only for predicate abstractions, to three-valued logical structures. This approach does not only increase the precision of model checking, but it also increases the efficiency of shape analysis. We implemented the technique by extending BLAST with calls to TVLA.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An extended version of this paper appeared in Proc. Dagstuhl Seminar 06081, IBFI Schloss Dagstuhl, 2006: <BR> <a href="http://drops.dagstuhl.de/portals/06081/"> http://drops.dagstuhl.de/portals/06081/</a> <BR> Supplementary material: <a href="http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/blast_sa/"> http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/blast_sa/</a>}, }
     Additional Infos

     An extended version of this paper appeared in Proc. Dagstuhl Seminar 06081, IBFI Schloss Dagstuhl, 2006:
     http://drops.dagstuhl.de/portals/06081/
     Supplementary material: http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/blast_sa/
123. Basil Becker, Dirk Beyer, Holger Giese, Florian Klein, and Daniela Schilling. Symbolic Invariant Verification for Systems with Dynamic Structural Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006, Shanghai, May 20-28), pages 72-81, 2006. ACM Press, New York (NY). doi:10.1145/1134285.1134297 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     The next generation of networked mechatronic systems will be characterized by complex coordination and structural adaptation at run-time. Crucial safety properties have to be guaranteed for all potential structural configurations. Testing cannot provide safety guarantees, while current model checking and theorem proving techniques do not scale for such systems. We present a verification technique for arbitrarily large multi-agent systems from the mechatronic domain, featuring complex coordination and structural adaptation. We overcome the limitations of existing techniques by exploiting the local character of structural safety properties. The system state is modeled as a graph, system transitions are modeled as rule applications in a graph transformation system, and safety properties of the system are encoded as inductive invariants (permitting the verification of infinite state systems). We developed a symbolic verification procedure that allows us to perform the computation on an efficient BDD-based graph manipulation engine, and we report performance results for several examples.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{ICSE06a, author = {Basil Becker and Dirk Beyer and Holger Giese and Florian Klein and Daniela Schilling}, title = {Symbolic Invariant Verification for Systems with Dynamic Structural Adaptation}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2006, Shanghai, May 20-28)}, pages = {72-81}, year = {2006}, publisher = {ACM Press, New York~(NY)}, isbn = {1-59593-375-1}, doi = {10.1145/1134285.1134297}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2006-ICSE.Symbolic_Invariant_Verification_for_Systems_with_Dynamic_Structural_Adaptation.pdf}, abstract = {The next generation of networked mechatronic systems will be characterized by complex coordination and structural adaptation at run-time. Crucial safety properties have to be guaranteed for all potential structural configurations. Testing cannot provide safety guarantees, while current model checking and theorem proving techniques do not scale for such systems. We present a verification technique for arbitrarily large multi-agent systems from the mechatronic domain, featuring complex coordination and structural adaptation. We overcome the limitations of existing techniques by exploiting the local character of structural safety properties. The system state is modeled as a graph, system transitions are modeled as rule applications in a graph transformation system, and safety properties of the system are encoded as inductive invariants (permitting the verification of infinite state systems). We developed a symbolic verification procedure that allows us to perform the computation on an efficient BDD-based graph manipulation engine, and we report performance results for several examples.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
124. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. Checking Memory Safety with Blast. In M. Cerioli, editors, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2005, Edinburgh, April 2-10), LNCS 3442, pages 2-18, 2005. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_2 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, BLAST statically proves that either the program satisfies the safety property or the program has an execution trace that exhibits a violation of the property. BLAST constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. We show how BLAST can be used to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We take a two-step approach. First, we use CCured, a type-based memory safety analyzer, to annotate with run-time checks all program points that cannot be proved memory safe by the type system. Second, we use BLAST to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate for the remaining run-time checks execution traces that witness them fail. Our experience shows that BLAST can remove many of the run-time checks added by CCured and provide useful information to the programmer about many of the remaining checks.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{FASE05, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {Checking Memory Safety with {{\sc Blast}}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2005, Edinburgh, April 2-10)}, editor = {M.~Cerioli}, pages = {2-18}, year = {2005}, series = {LNCS~3442}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {3-540-25420-X}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_2}, sha256 = {8216a41d893b4e987c3a19b82a0c8be06aa7f5bc9b35ef26ab226b95aea241b3}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2005-FASE.Checking_Memory_Safety_with_Blast.pdf}, abstract = {BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. Given a C program and a temporal safety property, BLAST statically proves that either the program satisfies the safety property or the program has an execution trace that exhibits a violation of the property. BLAST constructs, explores, and refines abstractions of the program state space based on lazy predicate abstraction and interpolation-based predicate discovery. We show how BLAST can be used to statically prove memory safety for C programs. We take a two-step approach. First, we use CCured, a type-based memory safety analyzer, to annotate with run-time checks all program points that cannot be proved memory safe by the type system. Second, we use BLAST to remove as many of the run-time checks as possible (by proving that these checks never fail), and to generate for the remaining run-time checks execution traces that witness them fail. Our experience shows that BLAST can remove many of the run-time checks added by CCured and provide useful information to the programmer about many of the remaining checks.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
125. Dirk Beyer, Adam J. Chlipala, Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. The Blast Query Language for Software Verification. In R. Giacobazzi, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS 2004, Verona, August 26-28), LNCS 3148, pages 2-18, 2004. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27864-1_2 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. BLAST is based on lazy predicate abstraction driven by interpolation-based predicate discovery. In this paper, we present the BLAST specification language. The language specifies program properties at two levels of precision. At the lower level, monitor automata are used to specify temporal safety properties of program executions (traces). At the higher level, relational reachability queries over program locations are used to combine lower-level trace properties. The two-level specification language can be used to break down a verification task into several independent calls of the model-checking engine. In this way, each call to the model checker may have to analyze only part of the program, or part of the specification, and may thus succeed in a reduction of the number of predicates needed for the analysis. In addition, the two-level specification language provides a means for structuring and maintaining specifications.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{SAS04, author = {Dirk Beyer and Adam J. Chlipala and Thomas A. Henzinger and Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {The {{\sc Blast}} Query Language for Software Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS~2004, Verona, August 26-28)}, editor = {R.~Giacobazzi}, pages = {2-18}, year = {2004}, series = {LNCS~3148}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {3-540-22791-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-27864-1_2}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2004-SAS.The_Blast_Query_Language_for_Software_Verification.pdf}, abstract = {BLAST is an automatic verification tool for checking temporal safety properties of C programs. BLAST is based on lazy predicate abstraction driven by interpolation-based predicate discovery. In this paper, we present the BLAST specification language. The language specifies program properties at two levels of precision. At the lower level, monitor automata are used to specify temporal safety properties of program executions (traces). At the higher level, relational reachability queries over program locations are used to combine lower-level trace properties. The two-level specification language can be used to break down a verification task into several independent calls of the model-checking engine. In this way, each call to the model checker may have to analyze only part of the program, or part of the specification, and may thus succeed in a reduction of the number of predicates needed for the analysis. In addition, the two-level specification language provides a means for structuring and maintaining specifications.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
126. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. An Eclipse Plug-in for Model Checking. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC 2004, Bari, June 24-26), pages 251-255, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (CA). doi:10.1109/WPC.2004.1311069 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     While model checking has been successful in uncovering subtle bugs in code, its adoption in software engineering practice has been hampered by the absence of a simple interface to the programmer in an integrated development environment. We describe an integration of the software model checker BLAST into the Eclipse development environment. We provide a verification interface for practical solutions for some typical program analysis problems -assertion checking, reachability analysis, dead code analysis, and test generation- directly on the source code. The analysis is completely automatic, and assumes no knowledge of model checking or formal notation. Moreover, the interface supports incremental program verification to support incremental design and evolution of code.
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{IWPC04, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {An {Eclipse} Plug-in for Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC~2004, Bari, June 24-26)}, pages = {251-255}, year = {2004}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos~(CA)}, isbn = {0-7695-2149-5}, doi = {10.1109/WPC.2004.1311069}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2004-IWPC.An_Eclipse_Plug-in_for_Model_Checking.pdf}, abstract = {While model checking has been successful in uncovering subtle bugs in code, its adoption in software engineering practice has been hampered by the absence of a simple interface to the programmer in an integrated development environment. We describe an integration of the software model checker BLAST into the Eclipse development environment. We provide a verification interface for practical solutions for some typical program analysis problems --assertion checking, reachability analysis, dead code analysis, and test generation-- directly on the source code. The analysis is completely automatic, and assumes no knowledge of model checking or formal notation. Moreover, the interface supports incremental program verification to support incremental design and evolution of code.}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }
127. Dirk Beyer, Adam J. Chlipala, Thomas A. Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, and Rupak Majumdar. Generating Tests from Counterexamples. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, May 26-28), pages 326-335, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (CA). doi:10.1109/ICSE.2004.1317455 Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     We have extended the software model checker BLAST to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. More precisely, given a C program and a target predicate p, BLAST determines the set L of program locations which program execution can reach with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that exhibit the truth of p at all locations in L. We have used BLAST to generate test suites and to detect dead code in C programs with up to 30K lines of code. The analysis and test-vector generation is fully automatic (no user intervention) and exact (no false positives).
     BibTeX Entry

     @inproceedings{ICSE04, author = {Dirk Beyer and Adam J. Chlipala and Thomas A. Henzinger and Ranjit Jhala and Rupak Majumdar}, title = {Generating Tests from Counterexamples}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2004, Edinburgh, May 26-28)}, pages = {326-335}, year = {2004}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos~(CA)}, isbn = {0-7695-2163-0}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE.2004.1317455}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2004-ICSE.Generating_Tests_from_Counterexamples.pdf}, abstract = {We have extended the software model checker BLAST to automatically generate test suites that guarantee full coverage with respect to a given predicate. More precisely, given a C program and a target predicate p, BLAST determines the set L of program locations which program execution can reach with p true, and automatically generates a set of test vectors that exhibit the truth of p at all locations in L. We have used BLAST to generate test suites and to detect dead code in C programs with up to 30K lines of code. The analysis and test-vector generation is fully automatic (no user intervention) and exact (no false positives).}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, }

128. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification with CPAchecker 3.0: Tutorial and User Guide (Extended Version). Technical report 2409.02094, arXiv/CoRR, September 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
     Artifact(s)

     1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13612338
     Abstract

     This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, k-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. It also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TechReport24c, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification with {CPAchecker} 3.0: {Tutorial} and User Guide (Extended Version)}, number = {2409.02094}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-09-10_FM24_CPAchecker_Tutorial.pdf}, abstract = {This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, <i>k</i>-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. It also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php">https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php</a>.}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#FM24a">paper</a> at FM 2024.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13612338}, funding = {DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {September}, }
     Additional Infos

     This technical report is an extended version of our paper at FM 2024.
129. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants (Extended Version). Technical report 2403.07821, arXiv/CoRR, March 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Artifact(s)

     1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10548594
     Abstract

     Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including k-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TechReport24a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants (Extended Version)}, number = {2403.07821}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/imc-df/}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07821}, abstract = {Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including <i>k</i>-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#SPIN24b">paper</a> at SPIN 2024.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548594}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {March}, }
     Additional Infos

     This technical report is an extended version of our paper at SPIN 2024.
130. Po-Chun Chien. Bridging Hardware and Software Formal Verification (Extended Abstract). Technical report 2024-06, LMU Munich, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2, CPAchecker, Witness-Based Validation Funding: DFG-CONVEY PDF
     Abstract

     Modern technology relies heavily on the integration of hardware and software systems, from embedded devices in consumer electronics to safety-critical controllers. Despite their interdependence, the tools and methods used for verifying the correctness and reliability of these systems are often segregated, meaning that the advancement in one community cannot benefit another directly. Addressing this challenge, my dissertation aims at bridging the gap between hardware and software formal analysis. This involves translating representations of verification tasks, generating certificates for verification results, integrating state-of-the-art formal analysis tools into a cohesive framework, and adapting and combining model-checking algorithms across domains. By translating word-level hardware circuits into C programs, we found out that software analyzers were able to identify property violations that well-established hardware verifiers failed to detect. Moreover, by adopting interpolation-based hardware-verification algorithms for software analysis, we were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. Our research consolidates knowledge from both hardware and software domains, paving a pathway for comprehensive system-level verification.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{chien:fm24-doc-symposium, author = {Po-Chun Chien}, title = {Bridging Hardware and Software Formal Verification (Extended Abstract)}, number = {2024-06}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FM_Doctoral_Symposium.Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Formal_Verification_Extended_Abstract.pdf}, abstract = {Modern technology relies heavily on the integration of hardware and software systems, from embedded devices in consumer electronics to safety-critical controllers. Despite their interdependence, the tools and methods used for verifying the correctness and reliability of these systems are often segregated, meaning that the advancement in one community cannot benefit another directly. Addressing this challenge, my dissertation aims at bridging the gap between hardware and software formal analysis. This involves translating representations of verification tasks, generating certificates for verification results, integrating state-of-the-art formal analysis tools into a cohesive framework, and adapting and combining model-checking algorithms across domains. By translating word-level hardware circuits into C programs, we found out that software analyzers were able to identify property violations that well-established hardware verifiers failed to detect. Moreover, by adopting interpolation-based hardware-verification algorithms for software analysis, we were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. Our research consolidates knowledge from both hardware and software domains, paving a pathway for comprehensive system-level verification.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2, CPAchecker, Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {An extended abstract of the dissertation project. Submitted to the Doctoral Symposium of FM 2024.}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, institution = {LMU Munich}, }
     Additional Infos

     An extended abstract of the dissertation project. Submitted to the Doctoral Symposium of FM 2024.
131. Marie-Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt. Incorporating Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions (Technical Report). Technical report 2309.01585, arXiv/CoRR, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2309.01585 Keyword(s): Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX Publisher's Version PDF
     Artifact(s)

     1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8272913
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{diffDP-TechReport, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt}, title = {Incorporating Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions (Technical Report)}, number = {2309.01585}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2309.01585}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#diffDP">paper</a> at iFM 2023.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8272913}, funding = {Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, }
     Additional Infos

     This technical report is an extended version of our paper at iFM 2023.
132. Dirk Beyer, Nian-Ze Lee, and Philipp Wendler. Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification. Technical report 2208.05046, arXiv/CoRR, August 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
     Abstract

     Interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003) is a formal-verification algorithm, which was originally devised to verify safety properties of finite-state transition systems. The algorithm is state-of-the-art in hardware model checking. It derives interpolants from unsatisfiable BMC queries, and collects them to construct an overapproximation of the set of reachable states. Unlike other formal-verification algorithms, such as k-induction or PDR, which have been extended to handle infinite-state systems and investigated for program analysis, McMillan's interpolation-based model checking algorithm from 2003 has not been used to verify programs so far. This paper closes this significant, 19 years old gap in knowledge by adopting the algorithm to software verification. We implemented it in the verification framework CPAchecker, and evaluated the implementation against other state-of-the-art software-verification techniques over the largest publicly available benchmark suite of C safety-verification tasks. The evaluation demonstrates that interpolation-based model checking is competitive among other algorithms in terms of both the number of solved verification tasks and the run-time efficiency. Our results might have important implications for software verification, because researchers and developers now have a richer set of approaches to choose from.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TechReport22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Nian-Ze Lee and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification}, number = {2208.05046}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-08-11_iPRA22_Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited.pdf}, abstract = {Interpolation-based model checking <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1">(McMillan, 2003)</a> is a formal-verification algorithm, which was originally devised to verify safety properties of finite-state transition systems. The algorithm is state-of-the-art in hardware model checking. It derives interpolants from unsatisfiable BMC queries, and collects them to construct an overapproximation of the set of reachable states. Unlike other formal-verification algorithms, such as k-induction or PDR, which have been extended to handle infinite-state systems and investigated for program analysis, McMillan's <em>interpolation-based model checking</em> algorithm from 2003 has not been used to verify programs so far. This paper closes this significant, 19 years old gap in knowledge by adopting the algorithm to software verification. We implemented it in the verification framework CPAchecker, and evaluated the implementation against other state-of-the-art software-verification techniques over the largest publicly available benchmark suite of C safety-verification tasks. The evaluation demonstrates that interpolation-based model checking is competitive among other algorithms in terms of both the number of solved verification tasks and the run-time efficiency. Our results might have important implications for software verification, because researchers and developers now have a richer set of approaches to choose from.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited.pdf}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {August}, }
133. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. Combining k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants. Technical report MIP-1503, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), January 2015. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1502.00096 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1503-PA15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Combining k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants}, number = {MIP-1503}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1502.00096}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-k-induction/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#CAV15">abbreviated version</a> of this article appeared in Proc. CAV 2015.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {January}, }
     Additional Infos

     An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Proc. CAV 2015.
134. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Domain-Type-Guided Refinement Selection Based on Sliced Path Prefixes. Technical report MIP-1501, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), January 2015. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1502.00045 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1501-PA15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Domain-Type-Guided Refinement Selection Based on Sliced Path Prefixes}, number = {MIP-1501}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1502.00045}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Extended publications based on this article appeared in <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#FORTE15">Proc. FORTE 2015</a> and <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#SPIN15b">Proc. SPIN 2015</a>.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {January}, }
     Additional Infos

     Extended publications based on this article appeared in Proc. FORTE 2015 and Proc. SPIN 2015.
135. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, Evgeny Novikov, Andreas Stahlbauer, and Philipp Wendler. Reusing Precisions for Efficient Regression Verification. Technical report MIP-1302, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), May 2013. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1305.6915 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems, namely, 59 device drivers with 1119 revisions from the Linux kernel.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1302-PA13, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Evgeny Novikov and Andreas Stahlbauer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Reusing Precisions for Efficient Regression Verification}, number = {MIP-1302}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1305.6915}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-reuse/}, abstract = {Continuous testing during development is a well-established technique for software-quality assurance. Continuous model checking from revision to revision is not yet established as a standard practice, because the enormous resource consumption makes its application impractical. Model checkers compute a large number of verification facts that are necessary for verifying if a given specification holds. We have identified a category of such intermediate results that are easy to store and efficient to reuse: abstraction precisions. The precision of an abstract domain specifies the level of abstraction that the analysis works on. Precisions are thus a precious result of the verification effort and it is a waste of resources to throw them away after each verification run. In particular, precisions are small and thus easy to store; they are easy to process and have a large impact on resource consumption. We experimentally show the impact of precision reuse on industrial verification problems, namely, 59 device drivers with 1119 revisions from the Linux kernel.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2013.complete.html#FSE13">abbreviated version</a> of this article appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2013.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {May}, }
     Additional Infos

     An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2013.
136. Sven Apel, Dirk Beyer, Karlheinz Friedberger, Franco Raimondi, and Alexander von Rhein. Domain Types: Selecting Abstractions Based on Variable Usage. Technical report MIP-1303, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), May 2013. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1305.6640 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     The success of software model checking depends on finding an appropriate abstraction of the subject program. The choice of the abstract domain and the analysis configuration is currently left to the user, who may not be familiar with the tradeoffs and performance details of the available abstract domains. We introduce the concept of domain types, which classify the program variables into types that are more fine-grained than standard declared types, such as int or long, in order to guide the selection of an appropriate abstract domain for a model checker. Our implementation determines the domain type for each variable in a pre-processing step, based on the variable usage in the program, and then assigns each variable to an abstract domain. The model-checking framework that we use supports to specify a separate analysis precision for each abstract domain, such that we can freely configure the analysis. We experimentally demonstrate a significant impact of the choice of the abstract domain per variable. We consider one explicit (hash tables for integer values) and one symbolic (binary decision diagrams) domain. The experiments are based on standard verification tasks that are taken from recent competitions on software verification. Each abstract domain has unique advantages in representing the state space of variables of a certain domain type. Our experiments show that software model checkers can be improved with a domain-type guided combination of abstract domains.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1303-PA13, author = {Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger and Franco Raimondi and Alexander von Rhein}, title = {Domain Types: Selecting Abstractions Based on Variable Usage}, number = {MIP-1303}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1305.6640}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/domaintypes/}, abstract = {The success of software model checking depends on finding an appropriate abstraction of the subject program. The choice of the abstract domain and the analysis configuration is currently left to the user, who may not be familiar with the tradeoffs and performance details of the available abstract domains. We introduce the concept of domain types, which classify the program variables into types that are more fine-grained than standard declared types, such as int or long, in order to guide the selection of an appropriate abstract domain for a model checker. Our implementation determines the domain type for each variable in a pre-processing step, based on the variable usage in the program, and then assigns each variable to an abstract domain. The model-checking framework that we use supports to specify a separate analysis precision for each abstract domain, such that we can freely configure the analysis. We experimentally demonstrate a significant impact of the choice of the abstract domain per variable. We consider one explicit (hash tables for integer values) and one symbolic (binary decision diagrams) domain. The experiments are based on standard verification tasks that are taken from recent competitions on software verification. Each abstract domain has unique advantages in representing the state space of variables of a certain domain type. Our experiments show that software model checkers can be improved with a domain-type guided combination of abstract domains.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {May}, }
137. Dirk Beyer and Stefan Löwe. Explicit-Value Analysis Based on CEGAR and Interpolation. Technical report MIP-1205, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), December 2012. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1212.6542 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1205-PA12, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we}, title = {Explicit-Value Analysis Based on {CEGAR} and Interpolation}, number = {MIP-1205}, year = {2012}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1212.6542}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {December}, }
138. Sven Apel, Hendrik Speidel, Philipp Wendler, Alexander von Rhein, and Dirk Beyer. Feature-Aware Verification. Technical report MIP-1105, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), September 2011. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1110.0021 Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     A software product line is a set of software products that are distinguished in terms of features (i.e., end-user-visible units of behavior). Feature interactions -situations in which the combination of features leads to emergent and possibly critical behavior- are a major source of failures in software product lines. We explore how feature-aware verification can improve the automatic detection of feature interactions in software product lines. Feature-aware verification uses product-line verification techniques and supports the specification of feature properties along with the features in separate and composable units. It integrates the technique of variability encoding to verify a product line without generating and checking a possibly exponential number of feature combinations. We developed the tool suite SPLverifier for feature-aware verification, which is based on standard model-checking technology. We applied it to an e-mail system that incorporates domain knowledge of AT&T. We found that feature interactions can be detected automatically based on specifications that have only feature-local knowledge, and that variability encoding significantly improves the verification performance when proving the absence of interactions.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1105-PA11, author = {Sven Apel and Hendrik Speidel and Philipp Wendler and Alexander von Rhein and Dirk Beyer}, title = {Feature-Aware Verification}, number = {MIP-1105}, year = {2011}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1110.0021}, url = {http://fosd.net/FAV/}, abstract = {A software product line is a set of software products that are distinguished in terms of features (i.e., end-user--visible units of behavior). Feature interactions ---situations in which the combination of features leads to emergent and possibly critical behavior--- are a major source of failures in software product lines. We explore how feature-aware verification can improve the automatic detection of feature interactions in software product lines. Feature-aware verification uses product-line verification techniques and supports the specification of feature properties along with the features in separate and composable units. It integrates the technique of variability encoding to verify a product line without generating and checking a possibly exponential number of feature combinations. We developed the tool suite SPLverifier for feature-aware verification, which is based on standard model-checking technology. We applied it to an e-mail system that incorporates domain knowledge of AT&T. We found that feature interactions can be detected automatically based on specifications that have only feature-local knowledge, and that variability encoding significantly improves the verification performance when proving the absence of interactions.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2011.complete.html#ASE11">abbreviated version</a> of this article appeared in Proc. ASE 2011.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {September}, }
     Additional Infos

     An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Proc. ASE 2011.
139. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Philipp Wendler. Conditional Model Checking. Technical report MIP-1107, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), September 2011. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1109.6926 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P -usually a state predicate- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P -that is, as long as the program does not leave states in which P is satisfied. We are of course interested in model checkers that return conditions P that are as weak as possible. Instead of outcome (1), the model checker will return P = true; instead of (2), the condition P will return the part of the state space that satisfies the specification; and in case (3), the condition P can summarize the work that has been performed by the model checker before space-out, time-out, or giving up. If complete verification is necessary, then a different verification method or tool may be used to focus on the states that violate the condition. We give such conditions as input to a conditional model checker, such that the verification problem is restricted to the part of the state space that satisfies the condition. Our experiments show that repeated application of conditional model checkers, using different conditions, can significantly improve the verification results, state-space coverage, and performance.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR1107-PA11, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and M. Erkan Keremoglu and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Conditional Model Checking}, number = {MIP-1107}, year = {2011}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1109.6926}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/cpa-cmc/}, abstract = {Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P ---usually a state predicate--- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P ---that is, as long as the program does not leave states in which P is satisfied. We are of course interested in model checkers that return conditions P that are as weak as possible. Instead of outcome (1), the model checker will return P = true; instead of (2), the condition P will return the part of the state space that satisfies the specification; and in case (3), the condition P can summarize the work that has been performed by the model checker before space-out, time-out, or giving up. If complete verification is necessary, then a different verification method or tool may be used to focus on the states that violate the condition. We give such conditions as input to a conditional model checker, such that the verification problem is restricted to the part of the state space that satisfies the condition. Our experiments show that repeated application of conditional model checkers, using different conditions, can significantly improve the verification results, state-space coverage, and performance.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2012.complete.html#FSE12">abbreviated version</a> of this article appeared in Proc. FSE 2012.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {September}, }
     Additional Infos

     An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Proc. FSE 2012.
140. Dirk Beyer, Alessandro Cimatti, Alberto Griggio, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Roberto Sebastiani. Software Model Checking via Large-Block Encoding. Technical report SFU-CS-2009-09, School of Computing Science (CMPT), Simon Fraser University (SFU), April 2009. doi:10.48550/arXiv.0904.4709 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     Abstract

     The construction and analysis of an abstract reachability tree (ART) are the basis for a successful method for software verification. The ART represents unwindings of the control-flow graph of the program. Traditionally, a transition of the ART represents a single block of the program, and therefore, we call this approach single-block encoding (SBE). SBE may result in a huge number of program paths to be explored, which constitutes a fundamental source of inefficiency. We propose a generalization of the approach, in which transitions of the ART represent larger portions of the program; we call this approach large-block encoding (LBE). LBE may reduce the number of paths to be explored up to exponentially. Within this framework, we also investigate symbolic representations: for representing abstract states, in addition to conjunctions as used in SBE, we investigate the use of arbitrary Boolean formulas; for computing abstract-successor states, in addition to Cartesian predicate abstraction as used in SBE, we investigate the use of Boolean predicate abstraction. The new encoding leverages the efficiency of state-of-the-art SMT solvers, which can symbolically compute abstract large-block successors. Our experiments on benchmark C programs show that the large-block encoding outperforms the single-block encoding.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR009-SFU09, author = {Dirk Beyer and Alessandro Cimatti and Alberto Griggio and M. Erkan Keremoglu and Roberto Sebastiani}, title = {Software Model Checking via Large-Block Encoding}, number = {SFU-CS-2009-09}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.0904.4709}, url = {}, abstract = {The construction and analysis of an abstract reachability tree (ART) are the basis for a successful method for software verification. The ART represents unwindings of the control-flow graph of the program. Traditionally, a transition of the ART represents a single block of the program, and therefore, we call this approach single-block encoding (SBE). SBE may result in a huge number of program paths to be explored, which constitutes a fundamental source of inefficiency. We propose a generalization of the approach, in which transitions of the ART represent larger portions of the program; we call this approach large-block encoding (LBE). LBE may reduce the number of paths to be explored up to exponentially. Within this framework, we also investigate symbolic representations: for representing abstract states, in addition to conjunctions as used in SBE, we investigate the use of arbitrary Boolean formulas; for computing abstract-successor states, in addition to Cartesian predicate abstraction as used in SBE, we investigate the use of Boolean predicate abstraction. The new encoding leverages the efficiency of state-of-the-art SMT solvers, which can symbolically compute abstract large-block successors. Our experiments on benchmark C programs show that the large-block encoding outperforms the single-block encoding.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, institution = {School of Computing Science (CMPT), Simon Fraser University (SFU)}, month = {April}, }
141. Dirk Beyer and M. Erkan Keremoglu. CPAchecker: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification. Technical report SFU-CS-2009-02, School of Computing Science (CMPT), Simon Fraser University (SFU), January 2009. doi:10.48550/arXiv.0902.0019 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Configurable software verification is a recent concept for expressing different program analysis and model checking approaches in one single formalism. This paper presents CPAchecker, a tool and framework that aims at easy integration of new verification components. Every abstract domain, together with the corresponding operations, is required to implement the interface of configurable program analysis (CPA). The main algorithm is configurable to perform a reachability analysis on arbitrary combinations of existing CPAs. The major design goal during the development was to provide a framework for developers that is flexible and easy to extend. We hope that researchers find it convenient and productive to implement new verification ideas and algorithms using this platform and that it advances the field by making it easier to perform practical experiments. The tool is implemented in Java and runs as command-line tool or as Eclipse plug-in. We evaluate the efficiency of our tool on benchmarks from the software model checker BLAST. The first released version of CPAchecker implements CPAs for predicate abstraction, octagon, and explicit-value domains. Binaries and the source code of CPAchecker are publicly available as free software.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR002-SFU09, author = {Dirk Beyer and M. Erkan Keremoglu}, title = {{CPAchecker}: A Tool for Configurable Software Verification}, number = {SFU-CS-2009-02}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.0902.0019}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/CPAchecker/}, abstract = {Configurable software verification is a recent concept for expressing different program analysis and model checking approaches in one single formalism. This paper presents CPAchecker, a tool and framework that aims at easy integration of new verification components. Every abstract domain, together with the corresponding operations, is required to implement the interface of configurable program analysis (CPA). The main algorithm is configurable to perform a reachability analysis on arbitrary combinations of existing CPAs. The major design goal during the development was to provide a framework for developers that is flexible and easy to extend. We hope that researchers find it convenient and productive to implement new verification ideas and algorithms using this platform and that it advances the field by making it easier to perform practical experiments. The tool is implemented in Java and runs as command-line tool or as Eclipse plug-in. We evaluate the efficiency of our tool on benchmarks from the software model checker BLAST. The first released version of CPAchecker implements CPAs for predicate abstraction, octagon, and explicit-value domains. Binaries and the source code of CPAchecker are publicly available as free software.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, institution = {School of Computing Science (CMPT), Simon Fraser University (SFU)}, month = {January}, }
142. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, Rupak Majumdar, and Andrey Rybalchenko. Path Invariants. Technical report MTC-REPORT-2006-003, School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique Féd́̊ale de Lausanne (EPFL), December 2006. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     The success of software verification depends on the ability to find a suitable abstraction of a program automatically. We propose a new method for automated abstraction refinement, which overcomes the inherent limitations of predicate discovery schemes. In such schemes, the cause of a false positive is identified as an infeasible error path, and the abstraction is refined in order to remove that path. By contrast, we view the cause of a false positive -the "spurious counterexample"- as a full-fledged program, whose control-flow graph may contain loops of the original program and represent unbounded computations. The advantages of using such path programs as counterexamples for abstraction refinement are twofold. First, we can bring the whole machinery of program analysis to bear on path programs: specifically, we use abstract interpretation in the form of constrained-based invariant generation to automatically infer invariants of path programs -so-called path invariants. Second, we use path invariants for abstraction refinement in order to remove not one infeasibility at a time, but to remove at once all infeasible error computations that are represented by a path program. Unlike predicate discovery schemes, our method handles loops without unrolling them; it infers abstractions that involve universal quantification and naturally incorporates disjunctive invariants.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR003-EPFL06, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Rupak Majumdar and Andrey Rybalchenko}, title = {Path Invariants}, number = {MTC-REPORT-2006-003}, year = {2006}, url = {http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=98452&ln=en}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2006-EPFL-TR003.Path_Invariants.pdf}, abstract = {The success of software verification depends on the ability to find a suitable abstraction of a program automatically. We propose a new method for automated abstraction refinement, which overcomes the inherent limitations of predicate discovery schemes. In such schemes, the cause of a false positive is identified as an infeasible error path, and the abstraction is refined in order to remove that path. By contrast, we view the cause of a false positive ---the ``spurious counterexample''--- as a full-fledged program, whose control-flow graph may contain loops of the original program and represent unbounded computations. The advantages of using such path programs as counterexamples for abstraction refinement are twofold. First, we can bring the whole machinery of program analysis to bear on path programs: specifically, we use abstract interpretation in the form of constrained-based invariant generation to automatically infer invariants of path programs ---so-called path invariants. Second, we use path invariants for abstraction refinement in order to remove not one infeasibility at a time, but to remove at once all infeasible error computations that are represented by a path program. Unlike predicate discovery schemes, our method handles loops without unrolling them; it infers abstractions that involve universal quantification and naturally incorporates disjunctive invariants.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {Online: <a href="http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=98452&ln=en"> http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=98452&ln=en</a> <BR>}, institution = {School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne (EPFL)}, month = {December}, }
     Additional Infos

     Online: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=98452&ln=en
     
143. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Vasu Singh. Three Algorithms for Interface Synthesis: A Comparative Study. Technical report MTC-REPORT-2006-001, School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique Féd́̊ale de Lausanne (EPFL), May 2006. Keyword(s): Interfaces for Component-Based Design, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     A temporal interface for a system component is a finite automaton that specifies the legal sequences of input events. We evaluate and compare three different algorithms for automatically extracting the temporal interface from the transition graph of a component: (1) a game algorithm that computes the interface as a representation of the most general environment strategy to avoid a safety violation; (2) a learning algorithm that repeatedly queries the component to construct the minimal interface automaton; and (3) a CEGAR algorithm that iteratively refines an abstract interface hypothesis by adding relevant state information from the component. Since algorithms (2) and (3) have been published in different software contexts, for comparison purposes, we present the three algorithms in a uniform finite-state setting. We furthermore extend the three algorithms to construct maximally permissive interface automata, which accept all legal input sequences. While the three algorithms have similar worst-case complexities, their actual running times differ greatly depending on the component whose interface is computed. On the theoretical side, we provide families of components that exhibit exponential differences in the performance of the three algorithms. On the practical side, we evaluate the three algorithms experimentally on a variety of real world examples. Not surprisingly, the experimental evaluation confirms the theoretical expectation: learning performs best if the minimal interface automaton is small; CEGAR performs best if only few component variables are needed to prove an interface hypothesis safe and permissive; and the direct (game) algorithm outperforms both approaches if neither is the case.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR001-EPFL06, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Vasu Singh}, title = {Three Algorithms for Interface Synthesis: A Comparative Study}, number = {MTC-REPORT-2006-001}, year = {2006}, url = {http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=85675&ln=en}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2006-EPFL-TR001.Three_Algorithms_for_Interface_Synthesis_A_Comparative_Study.pdf}, abstract = {A temporal interface for a system component is a finite automaton that specifies the legal sequences of input events. We evaluate and compare three different algorithms for automatically extracting the temporal interface from the transition graph of a component: (1) a game algorithm that computes the interface as a representation of the most general environment strategy to avoid a safety violation; (2) a learning algorithm that repeatedly queries the component to construct the minimal interface automaton; and (3) a CEGAR algorithm that iteratively refines an abstract interface hypothesis by adding relevant state information from the component. Since algorithms (2) and (3) have been published in different software contexts, for comparison purposes, we present the three algorithms in a uniform finite-state setting. We furthermore extend the three algorithms to construct maximally permissive interface automata, which accept all legal input sequences. While the three algorithms have similar worst-case complexities, their actual running times differ greatly depending on the component whose interface is computed. On the theoretical side, we provide families of components that exhibit exponential differences in the performance of the three algorithms. On the practical side, we evaluate the three algorithms experimentally on a variety of real world examples. Not surprisingly, the experimental evaluation confirms the theoretical expectation: learning performs best if the minimal interface automaton is small; CEGAR performs best if only few component variables are needed to prove an interface hypothesis safe and permissive; and the direct (game) algorithm outperforms both approaches if neither is the case.}, keyword = {Interfaces for Component-Based Design,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Online: <a href="http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=85675&ln=en"> http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=85675&ln=en</a> <BR>}, institution = {School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne (EPFL)}, month = {May}, }
     Additional Infos

     Online: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=85675&ln=en
     
144. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Grégory Théoduloz. Lazy Shape Analysis. Technical report MTC-REPORT-2005-006, School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique Féd́̊ale de Lausanne (EPFL), December 2005. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
     Abstract

     Many software model checkers are based on predicate abstraction. Values of variables in branching conditions are represented abstractly using predicates. The strength of this approach is its path-sensitive nature. However, if the control flow depends heavily on the values of memory cells on the heap, the approach does not work well, because it is difficult to find 'good' predicate abstractions to represent the heap. In contrast, shape analysis can lead to a very compact representation of data structures stored on the heap. In this paper, we combine shape analysis with predicate abstraction, and integrate it into the software model checker BLAST. Because shape analysis is expensive, we do not apply it globally. Instead, we ensure that shapes are computed and stored locally, only where necessary for proving the verification goal. To achieve this, we extend lazy abstraction refinement, which so far has been used only for predicate abstractions, to shapes. This approach does not only increase the precision of model checking and shape analysis taken individually, but also increases the efficiency of shape analysis (we do not compute shapes where not necessary). We implemented the technique by extending BLAST with calls to TVLA, and evaluated it on several C programs manipulating data structures, with the result that the combined tool can now automatically verify programs that are not verifiable using either shape analysis or predicate abstraction on its own.
     BibTeX Entry

     @techreport{TR006-EPFL05, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A.~Henzinger and Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Lazy Shape Analysis}, number = {MTC-REPORT-2005-006}, year = {2005}, url = {http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=63789&ln=en}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2005-EPFL-TR006.Lazy_Shape_Analysis.pdf}, abstract = {Many software model checkers are based on predicate abstraction. Values of variables in branching conditions are represented abstractly using predicates. The strength of this approach is its path-sensitive nature. However, if the control flow depends heavily on the values of memory cells on the heap, the approach does not work well, because it is difficult to find `good' predicate abstractions to represent the heap. In contrast, shape analysis can lead to a very compact representation of data structures stored on the heap. In this paper, we combine shape analysis with predicate abstraction, and integrate it into the software model checker BLAST. Because shape analysis is expensive, we do not apply it globally. Instead, we ensure that shapes are computed and stored locally, only where necessary for proving the verification goal. To achieve this, we extend lazy abstraction refinement, which so far has been used only for predicate abstractions, to shapes. This approach does not only increase the precision of model checking and shape analysis taken individually, but also increases the efficiency of shape analysis (we do not compute shapes where not necessary). We implemented the technique by extending BLAST with calls to TVLA, and evaluated it on several C programs manipulating data structures, with the result that the combined tool can now automatically verify programs that are not verifiable using either shape analysis or predicate abstraction on its own.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, annote = {Online: <a href="http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=63789&ln=en"> http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=63789&ln=en</a> <BR>}, institution = {School of Computer and Communication Sciences (IC), Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne (EPFL)}, month = {December}, }
     Additional Infos

     Online: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/search.py?recid=63789&ln=en
     

145. Daniel Bilic. Verification of Java Micro Services based on OpenAPI Specifications. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BilicOpenAPI, author = {Daniel Bilic}, title = {Verification of Java Micro Services based on OpenAPI Specifications}, year = {2024}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
146. Yannick Martin. Streamlining Software Verification: A Maven Plugin for Formal Verification of Java Code. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MartinJbmcMavenPlugin, author = {Yannick Martin}, title = {Streamlining Software Verification: A Maven Plugin for Formal Verification of Java Code}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Martin.Streamlining_Software_Verification_A_Maven_Plugin_for_Formal_Verification_of_Java_Code.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
147. Ella Dubchak. From Compilation to Verification: Extending Gradle with JBMC for Enhanced Code Safety. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DubchakJbmcGradlePlugin, author = {Ella Dubchak}, title = {From Compilation to Verification: Extending Gradle with JBMC for Enhanced Code Safety}, year = {2024}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
148. Robin Mattis. Verification of Micro Services based on Pact API Contracts. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MattisMicroserviceVerification, author = {Robin Mattis}, title = {Verification of Micro Services based on Pact API Contracts}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Mattis.Verification_of_Micro_Services_based_on_Pact_API_Contracts.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
149. Jiacheng Chen. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ChenMemcachedVerificationAFL, author = {Jiacheng Chen}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Chen.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_AFL++.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
150. Jinke Li. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{LiMemcachedVerificationGoblint, author = {Jinke Li}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Li.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Goblint.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
151. Khac Ming Le. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with FuSeBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{LeMemcachedVerificationFuSeBMC, author = {Khac Ming Le}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with FuSeBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Le.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_FuSeBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
152. Enno Muehlbauer. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Ultimate Automizer. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MuehlbauerMemcachedVerificationUAutomizer, author = {Enno Muehlbauer}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Ultimate Automizer}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Muehlbauer.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Ultimate_Automizer.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
153. Karim Triki. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Taipan. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{TrikiMemcachedVerificationTaipan, author = {Karim Triki}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Taipan}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Triki.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Taipan.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
154. Ahmad Ghanem. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with ESBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{GhanemMemcachedVerificationESBMC, author = {Ahmad Ghanem}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with ESBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Ghanem.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_ESBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
155. Yu-Chieh Lin. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CPAchecker and k-Induction. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{LinMemcachedVerificationCPAchecker, author = {Yu-Chieh Lin}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CPAchecker and k-Induction}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Lin.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_CPAchecker_and_K-Induction.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
156. Kai Müller. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Klee. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MuellerMemcachedVerificationKlee, author = {Kai Müller}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Klee}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Mueller.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Klee.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
157. Rania Qteishat. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{QteishatMemcachedVerificationCBMC, author = {Rania Qteishat}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Qteishat.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_CBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
158. Dinghao Shi. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ShiMemcachedVerificationAFL, author = {Dinghao Shi}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Shi.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_AFL++.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
159. Tong Wu. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{WuMemcachedVerificationGoblint, author = {Tong Wu}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Wu.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Goblint.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
160. Marko Ristic. A Library for Unit Verification. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{RisticUnitVerification, author = {Marko Ristic}, title = {A Library for Unit Verification}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Ristic.A_Library_for_Unit_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
161. Benedikt Damböck. Verification of Java Programs with Exceptions with CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DamboeckJavaExceptions, author = {Benedikt Damböck}, title = {Verification of Java Programs with Exceptions with CPAchecker}, year = {2023}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2023.Damboeck.Verification_of_Java_Programs_with_Exceptions_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-12-06_MA_Verification_of_Java_Programs_with_Exceptions_with_CPAchecker_Damboeck.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
162. Matthias Dangl. Witness-Based Validation of Verification Results with Applications to Software-Model Checking. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.31508 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DanglWitnesses, author = {Matthias Dangl}, title = {Witness-Based Validation of Verification Results with Applications to Software-Model Checking}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.31508}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31508/3/Dangl_Matthias.pdf}, presentation = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Now at ARS, Munich, Germany}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-315089}, }
     Additional Infos

     Now at ARS, Munich, Germany
163. Thomas Lemberger. Towards Cooperative Software Verification with Test Generation and Formal Verification. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.32852 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{LembergerCoop, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Towards Cooperative Software Verification with Test Generation and Formal Verification}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.32852}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32852/1/Lemberger_Thomas.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-12-12_PhD_TowardsCooperativeSoftwareVerification_Thomas.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, annote = {Nominated for the <a href="https://se2024.se.jku.at/ernst-denert-se-preis/">Ernst Denert SE-Preis 2024</a>}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-328522}, }
     Additional Infos

     Nominated for the Ernst Denert SE-Preis 2024
164. Karlheinz Friedberger. Efficient Software Model Checking with Block-Abstraction Memoization. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.29976 Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{FriedbergerBAM, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Efficient Software Model Checking with Block-Abstraction Memoization}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.29976}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29976/1/Friedberger_Karlheinz.pdf}, presentation = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Now at MSG Systems, Munich, Germany}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-296471}, }
     Additional Infos

     Now at MSG Systems, Munich, Germany
165. Daniel Baier. Implementation of Value Analysis over Symbolic Memory Graphs in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Symbolic Memory Graphs PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BaierSymbolicMemoryGraphs, author = {Daniel Baier}, title = {Implementation of Value Analysis over Symbolic Memory Graphs in CPAchecker}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Baier.Implementation_of_Value_Analysis_over_Symbolic_Memory_Graphs_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-09-28_MA_Implementation_of_Value_Analysis_over_Symbolic_Memory_Graphs_in_CPAchecker_Baier.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Symbolic Memory Graphs}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
166. Martin Pletl. A New Spin on Verification with Symbolic Execution: Symbolic Execution as Formula-Based Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{PletlSymbolicExecution, author = {Martin Pletl}, title = {A New Spin on Verification with Symbolic Execution: Symbolic Execution as Formula-Based Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker}, year = {2022}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
167. Maximilian Hailer. New Approaches and Visualization for Verification Coverage. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{HailerVerificationCoverage, author = {Maximilian Hailer}, title = {New Approaches and Visualization for Verification Coverage}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Hailer.New_Approaches_and_Visualization_for_Verification_Coverage.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-06-16_MA_New_Approaches_and_Visualization_for_Verification_Coverage_Hailer.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
168. Matthias Kettl. Adjustable Block Analysis: Actor-Based Creation of Block Summaries for Scaling Formal Verification. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{Kettl, author = {Matthias Kettl}, title = {Adjustable Block Analysis: Actor-Based Creation of Block Summaries for Scaling Formal Verification}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Kettl.Adjustable_Block_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-02-24_MA_Adjustable_Block_Analysis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
169. Philipp Waldinger. Concurrent Software Verification through Block-based Task Partitioning and Continuous Summary Refinement. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{WaldingerTaskPartitioning, author = {Philipp Waldinger}, title = {Concurrent Software Verification through Block-based Task Partitioning and Continuous Summary Refinement}, year = {2022}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
170. Ludwig Glückstadt. Genetic Programming in Software Verification. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Genetic Programming
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{GlueckstadtGP, author = {Ludwig Glückstadt}, title = {Genetic Programming in Software Verification}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Genetic Programming}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
171. Simon Antonischki. A CPA for String Analysis for Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{AntonischkiStringCPA, author = {Simon Antonischki}, title = {A CPA for String Analysis for Java Programs in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
172. Sebastian Tschoepel. Implementation and Evaluation of a Simple Taint Analysis for CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Taint
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{TschoepelTaint, author = {Sebastian Tschoepel}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of a Simple Taint Analysis for \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2021}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Taint}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
173. Moritz Beck. Solver-based Analysis of Memory Safety using Separation Logic. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, JavaSMT, Separation Logic, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BeckSeparationLogic, author = {Moritz Beck}, title = {Solver-based Analysis of Memory Safety using Separation Logic}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2020.Beck.Solver-based_Analysis_of_Memory_Safety_using_Separation_Logic.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-16_MA_SolverBasedAnalysisOfMemorySafetyUsingSeparationLogic_Beck.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,JavaSMT,Separation Logic,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
174. Martin Zehendner. Software Verification with Numerical Domains in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ZehendnerNumericalDomains, author = {Martin Zehendner}, title = {Software Verification with Numerical Domains in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
175. Sven Umbricht. Converting Between ACSL Annotations and Witness Invariants. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, ACSL PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{UmbrichtACSL, author = {Sven Umbricht}, title = {Converting Between ACSL Annotations and Witness Invariants}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Umbricht.Converting.Between.ACSL.Annotations.and.Witness.Invariants.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-02-10_BA_Converting.Between.ACSL.Annotations.and.Witness.Invariants_Umbricht.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, ACSL}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
176. Benedikt Damböck. Implementierung und Evaluation von einfacher Schleifenabstraktion für das CPAchecker-Framework. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Loop Acceleration
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DamboeckLoopAccel, author = {Benedikt Damböck}, title = {Implementierung und Evaluation von einfacher Schleifenabstraktion für das \textsc{CPAchecker}-Framework}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Loop Acceleration}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
177. Sven Massard. Improve Analysis of Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MassardJavaPrograms, author = {Sven Massard}, title = {Improve Analysis of Java Programs in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
178. Frederic Schönberger. Converting Test Goals to Condition Automata. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{SchoenbergerTestGoalsToConditions, author = {Frederic Sch{\"o}nberger}, title = {Converting Test Goals to Condition Automata}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Schoenberger.Converting_Test_Goals_to_Condition_Automata.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-01-13_BA_Converting_Test_Goals_to_Condition_Automata_Schoenberger.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
179. Jakob Selberg. Automatic Generation of Test Harnesses for Pointer-Based C Programs: Implementation of a Pointer-Tracking Analysis and Harness-Generation Engine in the Formal Verification Framework CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{SelbergHarnessesForPointers, author = {Jakob Selberg}, title = {Automatic Generation of Test Harnesses for Pointer-Based C Programs: Implementation of a Pointer-Tracking Analysis and Harness-Generation Engine in the Formal Verification Framework \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
180. Yannick Adams. Domain Types for Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{AdamsDomainTypesPredicate, author = {Yannick Adams}, title = {Domain Types for Predicate Analysis in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
181. Vladyslav Kolesnykov. SMT-Based Model Checking of Concurrent Programs. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KolesnykovConcurrencySMT, author = {Vladyslav Kolesnykov}, title = {{SMT}-Based Model Checking of Concurrent Programs}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kolesnykov.SMT-Based_Model_Checking_of_Concurrent_Programs.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
182. Angelos Kafounis. Fault Localization in Model Checking. Implementation and Evaluation of Fault-Localization Techniques with Distance Metrics. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KafounisFaultLocalizationWithDistanceMetrics, author = {Angelos Kafounis}, title = {Fault Localization in Model Checking. Implementation and Evaluation of Fault-Localization Techniques with Distance Metrics}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kafounis.Fault_Localization_in_Model_Checking_Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Fault-Localization_Techniques_with_Distance_Metrics.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-29_BA_FaultLocalizationWithDistanceMetrics_Kafounis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
183. Schindar Ali. Test-Based Fault Localization in the Context of Formal Verification: Implementation and Evaluation of the Tarantula Algorithm in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{AliFaultLocalizationWithTarantula, author = {Schindar Ali}, title = {Test-Based Fault Localization in the Context of Formal Verification: Implementation and Evaluation of the Tarantula Algorithm in CPAchecker}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Ali.Test-Based_Fault_Localization_in_the_Context_of_Formal_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-02_BA_FaultLocalizationWithTestBasedDistanceMetrics_Ali.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
184. Matthias Kettl. Fault Localization for Formal Verification: An Implementation and Evaluation of Algorithms based on Error Invariants and UNSAT-cores. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KettlFaultLocalization, author = {Matthias Kettl}, title = {Fault Localization for Formal Verification: An Implementation and Evaluation of Algorithms based on Error Invariants and UNSAT-cores}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kettl.Fault_Localization_for_Formal_Verification_An_Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Algorithms_based_on_Error_Invariants_and_UNSAT-cores.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-07-22_BA_FaultLocalizationWithUnsatCores_Kettl.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the LMU research award for excellent students (LMU Forschungspreis f{\"u}r exzellente Studierende) of LMU Munich}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won the LMU research award for excellent students (LMU Forschungspreis für exzellente Studierende) of LMU Munich
185. Alexander Koos. Implementation and Evaluation of a Framework for Canonization and Caching of SMT Formulae. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): JavaSMT, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KoosSMTCanonisationCaching, author = {Alexander Koos}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of a Framework for Canonization and Caching of {SMT} Formulae}, year = {2019}, keyword = {JavaSMT,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
186. Stephan Holzner. Design und Implementierung einer parallelen BDD-Bibliothek. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): BDD, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{HolznerParallelBDD, author = {Stephan Holzner}, title = {{Design und Implementierung einer parallelen BDD-Bibliothek}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Holzner.Design_und_Implementierung_einer_parallelen_BDD-Bibliothek.pdf}, keyword = {BDD,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
187. Michael Maier. SMT-Based Verification of ECMAScript Programs in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MichaelJavascript, author = {Michael Maier}, title = {{SMT}-Based Verification of {ECMAScript} Programs in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Maier.SMT_Based_Verification_of_ECMAScript_Programs_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-06-26_MA_SMTBasedVerificationOfECMAScriptProgramsInCPAchecker_Maier.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
188. Mirjam Trapp. Heuristics for Effective Predicate Refinement in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MirjamRefinement, author = {Mirjam Trapp}, title = {Heuristics for Effective Predicate Refinement in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
189. Thomas Bunk. LTL Software Model Checking in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ThomasLTL, author = {Thomas Bunk}, title = {{LTL} Software Model Checking in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Bunk.LTL_Software_Model_Checking_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-03-27_MA_LtlSoftwareModelChecking_Bunk.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
190. Maximilian Wiesholler. Correctness Witness Validation using Predicate Analysis. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{WieshollerWitnesses, author = {Maximilian Wiesholler}, title = {Correctness Witness Validation using Predicate Analysis}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Wiesholler.Correctness_Witness_Validation_using_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-06-05_BA_CorrectnessWitnessValidationUsingPredicateAnalysis_Wiesholler.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
191. Krutav Shah. Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement for Interval Domain. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ShahIntervalRefinement, author = {Krutav Shah}, title = {Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement for Interval Domain}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
192. Raphael Hagl. Hybrid Testcase Generation with CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{HaglHybridExecution, author = {Raphael Hagl}, title = {Hybrid Testcase Generation with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
193. Andrea Kreppel. Implementation and Evaluation of Backwards Analyses in the Software-Verification Framework CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Search Strategy PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KreppelBackwardsAnalysis, author = {Andrea Kreppel}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of Backwards Analyses in the Software-Verification Framework {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Kreppel.Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Backwards_Analyses_in_the_Software-Verification_Framework_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Search Strategy}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
194. Johannes Knaut. Symbolic Heap Abstraction with Automatic Refinement. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{JohannesSymbolicHeapRefinement, author = {Johannes Knaut}, title = {Symbolic Heap Abstraction with Automatic Refinement}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Knaut.Symbolic_Heap_Abstraction_with_Automatic_Refinement.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
195. Martin Spiessl. Configurable Software Verification based on Slicing Abstractions. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MartinSplitting, author = {Martin Spiessl}, title = {Configurable Software Verification based on Slicing Abstractions}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Spiessl.Configurable_Software_Verification_based_on_Slicing_Abstractions.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
196. Thomas Lemberger. Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking: Program Slicing + CEGAR. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ThomasSlicing, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking: Program Slicing + {CEGAR}}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Lemberger.Abstraction_Refinement_for_Model_Checking_Program_Slicing_and_Cegar.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
197. Matthias Gerlach. Newton Refinement as Alternative to Craig Interpolation in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{GerlachNewtonRefinement, author = {Matthias Gerlach}, title = {Newton Refinement as Alternative to {Craig} Interpolation in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2018.Gerlach.Newton_Refinement_as_Alternative_to_Craig_Interpolation_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-01-09_BA_NewtonRefinementAsAlternativeToCraigInterpolationInCPAchecker_Gerlach.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
198. Flutura Estler. Heuristics-Based Selection of Verification Configurations. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{EstlerHeuristic, author = {Flutura Estler}, title = {Heuristics-Based Selection of Verification Configurations}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
199. Moritz Buhl. Application of Software Verification to OpenBSD Network Modules. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BuhlOpenBSD, author = {Moritz Buhl}, title = {Application of Software Verification to {{\sc OpenBSD}} Network Modules}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
200. Karam Shabita. String Analysis for Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{SharamStrings, author = {Karam Shabita}, title = {String Analysis for {Java} Programs in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
201. Philipp Wendler. Towards Practical Predicate Analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Keyword(s): Benchmarking, CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{PhilippPredicateAnalysis, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {Towards Practical Predicate Analysis}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/wendler/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/2017.Wendler.Towards_Practical_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2017-11-20_RigorosumWendler_TowardsPracticalPredicateAnalysis.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking,CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Nominated for the <a href="https://gi.de/aktuelles/wettbewerbe/dissertationspreis/">Dissertation award 2017</a> of the German <a href="https://gi.de/">Gesellschaft f&uuml;r Informatik (GI)</a>}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:739-opus4-5098}, }
     Additional Infos

     Nominated for the Dissertation award 2017 of the German Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI)
202. Stefan Löwe. Effective Approaches to Abstraction Refinement for Automatic Software Verification. PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{StefanValueDomain, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {Effective Approaches to Abstraction Refinement for Automatic Software Verification}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/loewe/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/2017.Loewe.Effective_Approaches_to_Abstraction_Refinement_for_Automatic_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:739-opus4-4815}, }
203. Evgeny Dunaev. Entwurf und Implementierung einer Abstraktionsschicht für Zuweisungs-basierte Analysen. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Refactoring
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DunaevUnifyingAnalysis, author = {Evgeny Dunaev}, title = {{Entwurf und Implementierung einer Abstraktionsschicht f{\"u}r Zuweisungs-basierte Analysen}}, year = {2017}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Refactoring}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
204. Deyan Ivanov. Interactive Visualization of Verification Results from CPAchecker with D3. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{IvanovVisualization, author = {Deyan Ivanov}, title = {Interactive Visualization of Verification Results from {{\sc CPAchecker}} with {{\sc D3}}}, year = {2017}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2017.Ivanov.Interactive_Visualization_of_Verification_Results_from_CPAchecker_with_D3.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
205. Gernot Zoerneck. Implementing PDR in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ZoerneckPDR, author = {Gernot Zoerneck}, title = {Implementing {PDR} in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2017}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
206. Thomas Stieglmaier. Augmenting Predicate Analysis with Auxiliary Invariants. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ThomasInvariants, author = {Thomas Stieglmaier}, title = {Augmenting Predicate Analysis with Auxiliary Invariants}, year = {2016}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/stieglmaier}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2016.Stieglmaier.Augmenting_Predicate_Analysis_with_Auxiliary_Invariants.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
207. Sebastian Ott. Implementing a Termination Analysis using Configurable Software Analysis. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{SebastianTermination, author = {Sebastian Ott}, title = {Implementing a Termination Analysis using Configurable Software Analysis}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2016.Ott.Implementing_a_Termination_Analysis_using_Configurable_Program_Analysis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
208. Stefan Weinzierl. Configurable Pointer-Alias Analysis in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{WeinzierlPointerAliasing, author = {Stefan Weinzierl}, title = {Configurable Pointer-Alias Analysis in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2016.Weinzierl.Configurable_Pointer-Alias_Analysis_for_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
209. Maximilian Syri. Verification of Concurrent Programs by CFA Sequentialization. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{SyriConcurrency, author = {Maximilian Syri}, title = {Verification of Concurrent Programs by {CFA} Sequentialization}, year = {2016}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
210. Stephan Lukasczyk. Unbounded Heap Support for CPAchecker's Predicate Analysis Using SMT Arrays. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{LukasczykPredicateHeap, author = {Stephan Lukasczyk}, title = {Unbounded Heap Support for {{\sc CPAchecker}}'s Predicate Analysis Using {SMT} Arrays}, year = {2016}, url = {https://research.lukasczyk.me/heaparray/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
211. Magdalena Murr. Towards Understandable CPAchecker Counterexamples. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MurrCounterexampleReport, author = {Magdalena Murr}, title = {Towards Understandable {{\sc CPAchecker}} Counterexamples}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2016.Murr.Towards_Understandable_CPAchecker_Counterexamples.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, subject = {Mobile and Embedded Systems}, }
212. Karlheinz Friedberger. Block-Abstraction Memoization as an Approach to Verify Recursive Procedures. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2015. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KarlheinzBAMRecursion, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Block-Abstraction Memoization as an Approach to Verify Recursive Procedures}, year = {2015}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2015.Friedberger.Block-Abstraction_Memoization_as_an_Approach_to_Verify_Recursive_Procedures.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
213. Thomas Lemberger. Efficient Symbolic Execution using CEGAR over Two Abstract Domains. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2015. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ThomasSymbolicExecution, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Efficient Symbolic Execution using {CEGAR} over Two Abstract Domains}, year = {2015}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2015.Lemberger.Efficient_Symbolic_Execution_using_CEGAR_over_Two_Abstract_Domains.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
214. Thomas Stieglmaier. Octagon-Based Software Verification with CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2014. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ThomasOctagon, author = {Thomas Stieglmaier}, title = {Octagon-Based Software Verification with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2014}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2014.Stieglmaier.Octagon-Based_Software_Verification_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Internet Computing}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
215. Georg Dresler. A Google-App-Engine Implementation for CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2014. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DreslerAppEngine, author = {Georg Dresler}, title = {A Google-App-Engine Implementation for {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2014}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/download/appengine.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
216. Matthias Dangl. Light-Weight Invariant Generation for Software Verification with CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2013. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{MatthiasInvariantGeneration, author = {Matthias Dangl}, title = {Light-Weight Invariant Generation for Software Verification with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2013}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2015.Dangl.Light-Weight_Invariant_Generation_for_Software_Verification_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
217. Matthias Dittrich. Bit-Precise Predicate Analysis with CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2013. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DittrichBitprecisePredicate, author = {Matthias Dittrich}, title = {Bit-Precise Predicate Analysis with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2013}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
218. Christopher Jahn. Implementation of a CFA and ARG Visualization and Navigation Tool in Java. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{JahnVisualization, author = {Christopher Jahn}, title = {Implementation of a {CFA} and {ARG} Visualization and Navigation Tool in {Java}}, year = {2012}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
219. Andreas Stahlbauer. Block-Encoding Strategies for Predicate Analysis: An Experimental Study. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{StahlbauerStrategies, author = {Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {Block-Encoding Strategies for Predicate Analysis: An Experimental Study}, year = {2012}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, permit = {Permission for making available online not granted (Dirk asked on 2020-07-17 and received denial on 2020-07-18)}, }
220. Peter Häring. A Comparative Study of Software Measures as Problem-Predictors. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{HaeringMeasures, author = {Peter H{\"a}ring}, title = {A Comparative Study of Software Measures as Problem-Predictors}, year = {2012}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, permit = {}, }
221. Alexander Driemeyer. Software-Verifikation von Java-Programmen in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{DriemeyerJava, author = {Alexander Driemeyer}, title = {Software-Verifikation von Java-Programmen in CPAchecker}, year = {2012}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
222. Karlheinz Friedberger. Ein typbasierter Ansatz zur Kombination verschiedener Verifikationstechniken. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{KarlheinzDomainTypes, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {{Ein typbasierter Ansatz zur Kombination verschiedener Verifikationstechniken}}, year = {2012}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2012.Friedberger.Ein_typbasierter_Ansatz_zur_Kombination_verschiedener_Verifikationstechniken.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the yearly award of the chamber of industry and commerce of Lower Bavaria (IHK Niederbayern) for an excellent Bachelor's thesis}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won the yearly award of the chamber of industry and commerce of Lower Bavaria (IHK Niederbayern) for an excellent Bachelor's thesis
223. Mehmet Erkan Keremoglu. Towards Scalable Software Analyisis Using Combinations and Conditions with CPAchecker. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Software Systems Lab, 2011. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ErkanCMC, author = {Mehmet Erkan Keremoglu}, title = {Towards Scalable Software Analyisis Using Combinations and Conditions with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2011}, url = {https://summit.sfu.ca/item/12363}, pdf = {http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/12363/etd7320_MKeremoglu.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Now at Microsoft, Redmond, USA}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Software Systems Lab}, }
     Additional Infos

     Now at Microsoft, Redmond, USA
224. Andra-Maria Babau. Modeling and Verification of Airport Security Processes using BPMN and Protocol Interfaces: A Case Study. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2011. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BabauProtocolInterfaces, author = {Andra-Maria Babau}, title = {Modeling and Verification of Airport Security Processes using {BPMN} and Protocol Interfaces: A Case Study}, year = {2011}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
225. Grégory Théoduloz. Software Verification by Combining Program Analyses of Adjustable Precision. PhD Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, supervised by Prof. Thomas Henzinger, 2010. Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{GregoryCPA, author = {Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Software Verification by Combining Program Analyses of Adjustable Precision}, year = {2010}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-thesis-4781}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, supervised by Prof. Thomas Henzinger}, }
226. Dmitry Balzer. Werkzeugunterstützung für Verstehen und Monitoring von Software-Abhängigkeiten. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2010. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{BalzerDependencies, author = {Dmitry Balzer}, title = {{Werkzeugunterst{\"u}tzung f{\"u}r Verstehen und Monitoring von Software-Abh{\"a}ngigkeiten}}, year = {2010}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
227. Alexander von Rhein. Verification Tasks for Software Model Checking. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2010. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{AlexQuery, author = {Alexander~von~Rhein}, title = {Verification Tasks for Software Model Checking}, year = {2010}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
228. Ashgan Fararooy. Performing Static Structure Analysis using Software Dependencies. Master's Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Software Systems Lab, 2010. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{FararooyStructureAnalysis, author = {Ashgan Fararooy}, title = {Performing Static Structure Analysis using Software Dependencies}, year = {2010}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Software Systems Lab}, }
229. Philipp Wendler. Software Verification based on Adjustable Large-Block Encoding. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2010. Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{PhilippABE, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification based on Adjustable Large-Block Encoding}, year = {2010}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2010.Wendler.Software_Verification_based_on_Adjustable_Large-Block_Encoding.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the NRW Young Scientist Award 2010 in Dynamic Intelligent Systems, received for the Faculty Award 2011 for best Master's thesis, and the yearly award of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Lower Bavaria (IHK Niederbayern) for an excellent Master's thesis}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won the NRW Young Scientist Award 2010 in Dynamic Intelligent Systems, received for the Faculty Award 2011 for best Master's thesis, and the yearly award of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Lower Bavaria (IHK Niederbayern) for an excellent Master's thesis
230. Damien Zufferey. Master's Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, with Prof. Thomas Henzinger, 2009. Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{ZuffereyShape, author = {Damien Zufferey}, title = {}, year = {2009}, pdf = {}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, with Prof. Thomas Henzinger}, }
231. CPAchecker: Configurable Software Verification. 2007. Keyword(s): Software Development Project, CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{CPAchecker, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}}: Configurable Software Verification}, year = {2007}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/CPAchecker/}, keyword = {Software Development Project,CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, role = {Principal designer, architect, implementation, and maintenance}, }
232. Grégory Théoduloz. Integrating Shape Analysis into the Model Checker Blast. Master's Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, with Prof. Thomas Henzinger, 2006. Keyword(s): BLAST, Software Model Checking
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{TheodulozShape, author = {Gr{\'e}gory Th{\'e}oduloz}, title = {Integrating Shape Analysis into the Model Checker \textsc{Blast}}, year = {2006}, pdf = {}, keyword = {BLAST,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the EPFL Unicible Award 2006 and the ELCA Informatique Prize}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, EPFL, MTC Lab, with Prof. Thomas Henzinger}, }
     Additional Infos

     Won the EPFL Unicible Award 2006 and the ELCA Informatique Prize
233. Blast: Model Checking of Software. 2002. Keyword(s): Software Development Project, Software Model Checking Supplement
     BibTeX Entry

     @misc{Blast, title = {{{\sc Blast}}: Model Checking of Software}, year = {2002}, url = {http://www.sosy-lab.org/~dbeyer/Blast/}, keyword = {Software Development Project,Software Model Checking}, role = {Contributor, conceptual extensions, implementation, and maintenance}, }