REVIEW 1 cited by
Software Model Checking via Summary-Guided Search (Extended Version)
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
Software Model Checking via Summary-Guided Search (Extended Version)
read the original abstract
In this work, we describe a new software model-checking algorithm called GPS. GPS treats the task of model checking a program as a directed search of the program states, guided by a compositional, summary-based static analysis. The summaries produced by static analysis are used both to prune away infeasible paths and to drive test generation to reach new, unexplored program states. GPS can find both proofs of safety and counter-examples to safety (i.e., inputs that trigger bugs), and features a novel two-layered search strategy that renders it particularly efficient at finding bugs in programs featuring long, input-dependent error paths. To make GPS refutationally complete (in the sense that it will find an error if one exists, if it is allotted enough time), we introduce an instrumentation technique and show that it helps GPS achieve refutation-completeness without sacrificing overall performance. We benchmarked GPS on a diverse suite of benchmarks including programs from the Software Verification Competition (SV-COMP), from prior literature, as well as synthetic programs based on examples in this paper. We found that our implementation of GPS outperforms state-of-the-art software model checkers (including the top performers in SV-COMP ReachSafety-Loops category), both in terms of the number of benchmarks solved and in terms of running time.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Simplifying Safety Proofs with Forward-Backward Reasoning and Prophecy
An incremental safety proof system using forward-backward reasoning and prophecy steps allows proving safety with simpler invariants than a single complex inductive invariant.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.