An accurate algorithm for computing mutation coverage in model checking

Property coverage is an important way to evaluate the completeness of model checking. Most of the property coverage metrics are based on mutation coverage, obtained by mutating the design and checking the property's ability to detect the mutation. Due to the complexity of computing mutation coverage in model checking, the previous methods resort to some approximate algorithms which tend to give pessimistic estimation of state coverage, and can only deal with a limited subset of Computation Tree Logic (CTL). In this paper, we present an improved algorithm to compute mutation coverage for arbitrary CTL formulas with high accuracy. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm can identify a great number of covered states missed by a previous method. Meanwhile, the extension to the complete CTL set makes it easy to write all kinds of properties to describe the features of the design better.

[1]  R. BurchJ.,et al.  Symbolic model checking , 1992 .

[2]  Shobha Vasudevan,et al.  Code coverage of assertions using RTL source code analysis , 2014, 2014 51st ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC).

[3]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Estimating functional coverage in bounded model checking , 2007 .

[4]  S. Kimura,et al.  Transition traversal coverage estimation for symbolic model checking , 2005, 2005 6th International Conference on ASIC.

[5]  Ansuman Banerjee,et al.  Formal methods for analyzing the completeness of an assertion suite against a high-level fault model , 2005, 18th International Conference on VLSI Design held jointly with 4th International Conference on Embedded Systems Design.

[6]  Graziano Pravadelli,et al.  On the estimation of assertion interestingness , 2015, 2015 IFIP/IEEE International Conference on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI-SoC).

[7]  Ansuman Banerjee,et al.  A Generalized Theory for Formal Assertion Coverage , 2012, 2012 IEEE 21st Asian Test Symposium.

[8]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  Analyzing Functional Coverage in Bounded Model Checking , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.

[9]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation , 2003, DAC '03.

[10]  Daniel Kroening,et al.  Coverage in interpolation-based model checking , 2010, Design Automation Conference.

[11]  Rolf Drechsler,et al.  A guiding coverage metric for formal verification , 2012, 2012 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE).

[12]  Z. Navabi,et al.  Optimized Assignment Coverage Computation in Formal Verification of Digital Systems , 2007, 16th Asian Test Symposium (ATS 2007).

[13]  Timothy Kam,et al.  Coverage estimation for symbolic model checking , 1999, DAC '99.

[14]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Symbolic model checking , 1992 .

[15]  Shinji Kimura,et al.  Transition-based coverage estimation for symbolic model checking , 2006, Asia and South Pacific Conference on Design Automation, 2006..

[16]  Orna Grumberg,et al.  "Have I written enough Properties?" - A Method of Comparison between Specification and Implementation , 1999, CHARME.

[17]  Pao-Ann Hsiung,et al.  Accelerating Coverage Estimation Through Partial Model Checking , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[18]  S. Mohammadi,et al.  Assignment coverage, a complementary coverage metric in formal verification , 2007, 2007 International Conference on Design & Technology of Integrated Systems in Nanoscale Era.