Automated abstraction by incremental refinement in interpolant-based model checking

This paper addresses the field of Unbounded Model Checking (UMC) based on SAT engines, where Craig interpolants have recently gained wide acceptance as an automated abstraction technique. We start from the observation that interpolants can be quite effective on large verification instances. As they operate on SAT-generated refutation proofs, interpolants are very good at automatically abstract facts that are not significant for proofs. In this work, we push forward the new idea of generating abstractions without resorting to SAT proofs, and to accept (reject) abstractions whenever they (do not) fulfill given adequacy constraints. We propose an integrated approach smoothly combining the capabilities of interpolation with abstraction and over-approximation techniques, that do not directly derive from SAT refutation proofs. The driving idea of this combination is to incrementally generate, by refinement, an abstract (over-approximate) image, built up from equivalences, implications, ternary and localization abstraction, then (eventually) from SAT refutation proofs. Experimental results, derived from the verification of hard problems, show the robustness of our approach.

[1]  Kwang-Ting Cheng,et al.  IChecker: An Efficient Checker for Inductive Invariants , 2006, 2006 IEEE International High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop.

[2]  Koen Claessen,et al.  SAT-Based Verification without State Space Traversal , 2000, FMCAD.

[3]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking , 2003, CAV.

[4]  E. Clarke,et al.  Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs , 1999, Proceedings 1999 Design Automation Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36361).

[5]  M. Ganai,et al.  Efficient SAT-based unbounded symbolic model checking using circuit cofactoring , 2004, ICCAD 2004.

[6]  Zurab Khasidashvili,et al.  SAT-based methods for sequential hardware equivalence verification without synchronization , 2003, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Gianpiero Cabodi,et al.  Boosting the role of inductive invariants in model checking , 2007 .

[8]  Bing Li,et al.  Efficient Abstraction Refinement in Interpolation-Based Unbounded Model Checking , 2006, TACAS.

[9]  Per Bjesse,et al.  DAG-aware circuit compression for formal verification , 2004, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design, 2004. ICCAD-2004..

[10]  Armin Biere,et al.  Combining Decision Diagrams and SAT Procedures for Efficient Symbolic Model Checking , 2000, CAV.

[11]  Mary Sheeran,et al.  Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver , 2000, FMCAD.

[12]  In-Cheol Park,et al.  SAT-based unbounded symbolic model checking , 2005, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[13]  G. Cabodi,et al.  Stepping Forward with Interpolants in Unbounded Model Checking , 2006, 2006 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design.

[14]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Symbolic model checking for sequential circuit verification , 1993, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[15]  Sharad Malik.  Analysis of cyclic combinational circuits , 1994, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[16]  Joao Marques-Silva.  Improvements to the Implementation of Interpolant-Based Model Checking , 2005, CHARME.

[17]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Applying SAT Methods in Unbounded Symbolic Model Checking , 2002, CAV.

[18]  Parosh Aziz Abdulla,et al.  Symbolic Reachability Analysis Based on SAT-Solvers , 2000, TACAS.

[19]  Mike Case.  Inductively Finding a Reachable State Space Over-Approximation , 2005 .