Static Analysis of Parity Games: Alternating Reachability Under Parity

It is well understood that solving parity games is equivalent, up to polynomial time, to model checking of the modal mu-calculus. It is a long-standing open problem whether solving parity games (or model checking modal mu-calculus formulas) can be done in polynomial time. A recent approach to studying this problem has been the design of partial solvers, algorithms that run in polynomial time and that may only solve parts of a parity game. Although it was shown that such partial solvers can completely solve many practical benchmarks, the design of such partial solvers was somewhat ad hoc, limiting a deeper understanding of the potential of that approach. We here mean to provide such robust foundations for deeper analysis through a new form of game, alternating reachability under parity. We prove the determinacy of these games and use this determinacy to define, for each player, a monotone fixed point over an ordered domain of height linear in the size of the parity game such that all nodes in its greatest fixed point are won by said player in the parity game. We show, through theoretical and experimental work, that such greatest fixed points and their computation leads to partial solvers that run in polynomial time. These partial solvers are based on established principles of static analysis and are more effective than partial solvers studied in extant work

A PVS-Simulink Integrated Environment for Model-Based Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems

This paper presents a methodology, with supporting tool, for formal modeling and analysis of software components in cyber-physical systems. Using our approach, developers can integrate a simulation of logic-based specifications of software components and Simulink models of continuous processes. The integrated simulation is useful to validate the characteristics of discrete system components early in the development process. The same logic-based specifications can also be formally verified using the Prototype Verification System (PVS), to gain additional confidence that the software design complies with specific safety requirements. Modeling patterns are defined for generating the logic-based specifications from the more familiar automata-based formalism. The ultimate aim of this work is to facilitate the introduction of formal verification technologies in the software development process of cyber-physical systems, which typically requires the integrated use of different formalisms and tools. A case study from the medical domain is used to illustrate the approach. A PVS model of a pacemaker is interfaced with a Simulink model of the human heart. The overall cyber-physical system is co-simulated to validate design requirements through exploration of relevant test scenarios. Formal verification with the PVS theorem prover is demonstrated for the pacemaker model for specific safety aspects of the pacemaker design

Predicting SMT solver performance for software verification

The approach Why3 takes to interfacing with a wide variety of interactive and automatic theorem provers works well: it is designed to overcome limitations on what can be proved by a system which relies on a single tightly-integrated solver. In common with other systems, however, the degree to which proof obligations (or “goals”) are proved depends as much on the SMT solver as the properties of the goal itself. In this work, we present a method to use syntactic analysis to characterise goals and predict the most appropriate solver via machine-learning techniques. Combining solvers in this way - a portfolio-solving approach - maximises the number of goals which can be proved. The driver-based architecture of Why3 presents a unique opportunity to use a portfolio of SMT solvers for software verification. The intelligent scheduling of solvers minimises the time it takes to prove these goals by avoiding solvers which return Timeout and Unknown responses. We assess the suitability of a number of machinelearning algorithms for this scheduling task. The performance of our tool Where4 is evaluated on a dataset of proof obligations. We compare Where4 to a range of SMT solvers and theoretical scheduling strategies. We find that Where4 can out-perform individual solvers by proving a greater number of goals in a shorter average time. Furthermore, Where4 can integrate into a Why3 user’s normal workflow - simplifying and automating the non-expert use of SMT solvers for software verification

Predicting SMT solver performance for software verification

The approach Why3 takes to interfacing with a wide variety of interactive and automatic theorem provers works well: it is designed to overcome limitations on what can be proved by a system which relies on a single tightly-integrated solver. In common with other systems, however, the degree to which proof obligations (or “goals”) are proved depends as much on the SMT solver as the properties of the goal itself. In this work, we present a method to use syntactic analysis to characterise goals and predict the most appropriate solver via machine-learning techniques. Combining solvers in this way - a portfolio-solving approach - maximises the number of goals which can be proved. The driver-based architecture of Why3 presents a unique opportunity to use a portfolio of SMT solvers for software verification. The intelligent scheduling of solvers minimises the time it takes to prove these goals by avoiding solvers which return Timeout and Unknown responses. We assess the suitability of a number of machinelearning algorithms for this scheduling task. The performance of our tool Where4 is evaluated on a dataset of proof obligations. We compare Where4 to a range of SMT solvers and theoretical scheduling strategies. We find that Where4 can out-perform individual solvers by proving a greater number of goals in a shorter average time. Furthermore, Where4 can integrate into a Why3 user’s normal workflow - simplifying and automating the non-expert use of SMT solvers for software verification