MAPmAKER: performing multi-robot LTL planning under uncertainty

Robot applications are being increasingly used in real life to help humans performing dangerous, heavy, and/or monotonous tasks. They usually rely on planners that given a robot or a team of robots compute plans that specify how the robot(s) can fulfill their missions. Current robot applications ask for planners that make automated planning possible even when only partial knowledge about the environment in which the robots are deployed is available. To tackle such challenges we developed MAPmAKER, which provides a decentralized planning solution and is able to work in partially known environments. Decentralization is realized by decomposing the robotic team into subteams based on their missions, and then by running a classical planning algorithm. Partial knowledge is handled by calling several times a classical planning algorithm. Demo video available at: https://youtu.be/TJzC_u2yfzQ

Automatic Abstraction in SMT-Based Unbounded Software Model Checking

Software model checkers based on under-approximations and SMT solvers are very successful at verifying safety (i.e. reachability) properties. They combine two key ideas -- (a) "concreteness": a counterexample in an under-approximation is a counterexample in the original program as well, and (b) "generalization": a proof of safety of an under-approximation, produced by an SMT solver, are generalizable to proofs of safety of the original program. In this paper, we present a combination of "automatic abstraction" with the under-approximation-driven framework. We explore two iterative approaches for obtaining and refining abstractions -- "proof based" and "counterexample based" -- and show how they can be combined into a unified algorithm. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of Proof-Based Abstraction, primarily used to verify hardware, to Software Verification. We have implemented a prototype of the framework using Z3, and evaluate it on many benchmarks from the Software Verification Competition. We show experimentally that our combination is quite effective on hard instances.Comment: Extended version of a paper in the proceedings of CAV 201

Predicate Abstraction in Program Verification: Survey and Current Trends

A popular approach to verification of software system correctness is model checking. To achieve scalability needed for large systems, model checking has to be augmented with abstraction. In this paper, we provide an overview of selected techniques of program verification based on predicate abstraction. We focus on techniques that advanced the state-of-the-art in a significant way, including counterexample-guided abstraction refinement, lazy abstraction, and current trends in the form of extensions targeting, for example, data structures and multi-threading. We discuss limitations of these techniques and present our plans for addressing some of them

SMT-based Model Checking for Recursive Programs

We present an SMT-based symbolic model checking algorithm for safety verification of recursive programs. The algorithm is modular and analyzes procedures individually. Unlike other SMT-based approaches, it maintains both "over-" and "under-approximations" of procedure summaries. Under-approximations are used to analyze procedure calls without inlining. Over-approximations are used to block infeasible counterexamples and detect convergence to a proof. We show that for programs and properties over a decidable theory, the algorithm is guaranteed to find a counterexample, if one exists. However, efficiency depends on an oracle for quantifier elimination (QE). For Boolean Programs, the algorithm is a polynomial decision procedure, matching the worst-case bounds of the best BDD-based algorithms. For Linear Arithmetic (integers and rationals), we give an efficient instantiation of the algorithm by applying QE "lazily". We use existing interpolation techniques to over-approximate QE and introduce "Model Based Projection" to under-approximate QE. Empirical evaluation on SV-COMP benchmarks shows that our algorithm improves significantly on the state-of-the-art.Comment: originally published as part of the proceedings of CAV 2014; fixed typos, better wording at some place

Symbolic Computation via Program Transformation

Symbolic computation is an important approach in automated program analysis. Most state-of-the-art tools perform symbolic computation as interpreters and directly maintain symbolic data. In this paper, we show that it is feasible, and in fact practical, to use a compiler-based strategy instead. Using compiler tooling, we propose and implement a transformation which takes a standard program and outputs a program that performs semantically equivalent, but partially symbolic, computation. The transformed program maintains symbolic values internally and operates directly on them hence the program can be processed by a tool without support for symbolic manipulation. The main motivation for the transformation is in symbolic verification, but there are many other possible use-cases, including test generation and concolic testing. Moreover using the transformation simplifies tools, since the symbolic computation is handled by the program directly. We have implemented the transformation at the level of LLVM bitcode. The paper includes an experimental evaluation, based on an explicit-state software model checker as a verification backend

Local reasoning about the presence of bugs: Incorrectness Separation Logic

There has been a large body of work on local reasoning for proving the absence of bugs, but none for proving their presence. We present a new formal framework for local reasoning about the presence of bugs, building on two complementary foundations: 1) separation logic and 2) incorrectness logic. We explore the theory of this new incorrectness separation logic (ISL), and use it to derive a begin-anywhere, intra-procedural symbolic execution analysis that has no false positives by construction. In so doing, we take a step towards transferring modular, scalable techniques from the world of program verification to bug catching

Effective Verification for Low-Level Software with Competing Interrupts

Interrupt-driven software is difficult to test and debug, especially when interrupts can be nested and subject to priorities. Interrupts can arrive at arbitrary times, leading to an exponential blow-up in the number of cases to consider. We present a new formal approach to verifying interrupt-driven software based on symbolic execution. The approach leverages recent advances in the encoding of the execution traces of interacting, concurrent threads. We assess the performance of our method on benchmarks drawn from embedded systems code and device drivers, and experimentally compare it to conventional approaches that use source-to-source transformations. Our results show that our method significantly outperforms these techniques. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to demonstrate effective verification of low-level embedded software with nested interrupt