Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

ML + FV = $\heartsuit$? A Survey on the Application of Machine Learning to Formal Verification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1806.03600 v2 pith:PT3N6YXT submitted 2018-06-10 cs.SE cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.LG
keywords learningformalmachinepossiblepracticereliesverificationaims
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Formal Verification (FV) and Machine Learning (ML) can seem incompatible due to their opposite mathematical foundations and their use in real-life problems: FV mostly relies on discrete mathematics and aims at ensuring correctness; ML often relies on probabilistic models and consists of learning patterns from training data. In this paper, we postulate that they are complementary in practice, and explore how ML helps FV in its classical approaches: static analysis, model-checking, theorem-proving, and SAT solving. We draw a landscape of the current practice and catalog some of the most prominent uses of ML inside FV tools, thus offering a new perspective on FV techniques that can help researchers and practitioners to better locate the possible synergies. We discuss lessons learned from our work, point to possible improvements and offer visions for the future of the domain in the light of the science of software and systems modeling.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Application of AI to formal methods - an analysis of current trends

    cs.LO 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic mapping of 189 studies (2019-2023) shows AI applied to formal methods is dominated by theorem proving, with a notable scarcity of benchmarks, case studies, and shared training data.

Pith tools