SAT Based Predicate Abstraction for Hardware Verification

Predicate abstraction is an important technique for extracting compact finite state models from large or infinite state systems. Predicate abstraction uses decision procedures to compute a model which is amenable to model checking, and has been used successfully for software verification. Little work however has been done on applying predicate abstraction to large scale finite state systems, most notably, hardware, where the decision procedures are SAT solvers. We consider predicate abstraction for hardware in the framework of Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement where in the course of verification, the abstract model has to be repeatedly refined. The goal of the refinement is to eliminate spurious behavior in the abstract model which is not present in the original model, and gives rise to false negatives (spurious counterexamples).

[1]  Kedar S. Namjoshi,et al.  Syntactic Program Transformations for Automatic Abstraction , 2000, CAV.

[2]  Helmut Veith,et al.  Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking , 2003, JACM.

[3]  Natarajan Shankar,et al.  Abstract and Model Check While You Prove , 1999, CAV.

[4]  David L. Dill,et al.  Experience with Predicate Abstraction , 1999, CAV.

[5]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  NUSMV: A New Symbolic Model Verifier , 1999, CAV.

[6]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement , 2000, CAV.

[7]  Dong Wang,et al.  High level verification of control intensive systems using predicate abstraction , 2003, First ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, 2003. MEMOCODE '03. Proceedings..

[8]  Helmut Veith,et al.  Counterexamples Revisited: Principles, Algorithms, Applications , 2003, Verification: Theory and Practice.

[9]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Logics of Programs , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[10]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Model checking and abstraction , 1994, TOPL.

[11]  Helmut Veith,et al.  Automated Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking Large State Spaces Using SAT Based Conflict Analysis , 2002, FMCAD.

[12]  Enrico Macii,et al.  Automatic state space decomposition for approximate FSM traversal based on circuit analysis , 1996, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[13]  Reinhard Wilhelm.  Informatics - 10 Years Back. 10 Years Ahead , 2001, Informatics - 10 Years Back. 10 Years Ahead..

[14]  David L. Dill,et al.  Successive approximation of abstract transition relations , 2001, Proceedings 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[15]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[16]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Model Checking , 1999, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

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

[18]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Verification: Theory and Practice , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Helmut Veith,et al.  Progress on the State Explosion Problem in Model Checking , 2001, Informatics.

[20]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Conflict driven learning in a quantified Boolean Satisfiability solver , 2002, ICCAD 2002.

[21]  Hassen Saïdi,et al.  Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS , 1997, CAV.