Combining k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants

Bounded model checking (BMC) is a well-known and successful technique for finding bugs in software. k-induction is an approach to extend BMC-based approaches from falsification to verification. Automatically generated auxiliary invariants can be used to strengthen the induction hypothesis. We improve this approach and further increase effectiveness and efficiency in the following way: we start with light-weight invariants and refine these invariants continuously during the analysis. We present and evaluate an implementation of our approach 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 software verification in terms of successful verification results.Comment: 12 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables, 2 algorithm

Sciduction: Combining Induction, Deduction, and Structure for Verification and Synthesis

Even with impressive advances in automated formal methods, certain problems in system verification and synthesis remain challenging. Examples include the verification of quantitative properties of software involving constraints on timing and energy consumption, and the automatic synthesis of systems from specifications. The major challenges include environment modeling, incompleteness in specifications, and the complexity of underlying decision problems. This position paper proposes sciduction, an approach to tackle these challenges by integrating inductive inference, deductive reasoning, and structure hypotheses. Deductive reasoning, which leads from general rules or concepts to conclusions about specific problem instances, includes techniques such as logical inference and constraint solving. Inductive inference, which generalizes from specific instances to yield a concept, includes algorithmic learning from examples. Structure hypotheses are used to define the class of artifacts, such as invariants or program fragments, generated during verification or synthesis. Sciduction constrains inductive and deductive reasoning using structure hypotheses, and actively combines inductive and deductive reasoning: for instance, deductive techniques generate examples for learning, and inductive reasoning is used to guide the deductive engines. We illustrate this approach with three applications: (i) timing analysis of software; (ii) synthesis of loop-free programs, and (iii) controller synthesis for hybrid systems. Some future applications are also discussed

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

PrIC3: Property Directed Reachability for MDPs

IC3 has been a leap forward in symbolic model checking. This paper proposes PrIC3 (pronounced pricy-three), a conservative extension of IC3 to symbolic model checking of MDPs. Our main focus is to develop the theory underlying PrIC3. Alongside, we present a first implementation of PrIC3 including the key ingredients from IC3 such as generalization, repushing, and propagation

Bounded Quantifier Instantiation for Checking Inductive Invariants

We consider the problem of checking whether a proposed invariant $\varphi$ expressed in first-order logic with quantifier alternation is inductive, i.e. preserved by a piece of code. While the problem is undecidable, modern SMT solvers can sometimes solve it automatically. However, they employ powerful quantifier instantiation methods that may diverge, especially when $\varphi$ is not preserved. A notable difficulty arises due to counterexamples of infinite size. This paper studies Bounded-Horizon instantiation, a natural method for guaranteeing the termination of SMT solvers. The method bounds the depth of terms used in the quantifier instantiation process. We show that this method is surprisingly powerful for checking quantified invariants in uninterpreted domains. Furthermore, by producing partial models it can help the user diagnose the case when $\varphi$ is not inductive, especially when the underlying reason is the existence of infinite counterexamples. Our main technical result is that Bounded-Horizon is at least as powerful as instrumentation, which is a manual method to guarantee convergence of the solver by modifying the program so that it admits a purely universal invariant. We show that with a bound of 1 we can simulate a natural class of instrumentations, without the need to modify the code and in a fully automatic way. We also report on a prototype implementation on top of Z3, which we used to verify several examples by Bounded-Horizon of bound 1

Speeding up the constraint-based method in difference logic

"The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-40970-2_18"Over the years the constraint-based method has been successfully applied to a wide range of problems in program analysis, from invariant generation to termination and non-termination proving. Quite often the semantics of the program under study as well as the properties to be generated belong to difference logic, i.e., the fragment of linear arithmetic where atoms are inequalities of the form u v = k. However, so far constraint-based techniques have not exploited this fact: in general, Farkas’ Lemma is used to produce the constraints over template unknowns, which leads to non-linear SMT problems. Based on classical results of graph theory, in this paper we propose new encodings for generating these constraints when program semantics and templates belong to difference logic. Thanks to this approach, instead of a heavyweight non-linear arithmetic solver, a much cheaper SMT solver for difference logic or linear integer arithmetic can be employed for solving the resulting constraints. We present encouraging experimental results that show the high impact of the proposed techniques on the performance of the VeryMax verification systemPeer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft