Constraints in one-to-many concretization for abstraction refinement

In one-to-many concretization for model checking based on abstraction refinement, constraints on input vectors that are pseudorandomly generated are often essential to the success of the procedure. These constraints have to do with both primary inputs and invisible state variables. We discuss algorithms that address both types and we show their effectiveness through experiments.

[1]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  Improved Visibility in One-to-Many Trace Concretization , 2008, 2008 Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[2]  Daniel Kroening,et al.  Counterexamples with Loops for Predicate Abstraction , 2006, CAV.

[3]  Fabio Somenzi,et al.  Guiding simulation with increasingly refined abstract traces , 2006, 2006 43rd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[4]  Robert P. Kurshan,et al.  Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach , 2014 .

[5]  Chao Wang,et al.  Induction in CEGAR for Detecting Counterexamples , 2007, Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD'07).

[6]  Michael S. Hsiao,et al.  Efficient Design Validation Based on Cultural Algorithms , 2008, 2008 Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[7]  Bing Li,et al.  Improving Ariadne's Bundle by following multiple threads in abstraction refinement , 2003, ICCAD-2003. International Conference on Computer Aided Design (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37486).

[8]  Alan J. Hu,et al.  An Effective Guidance Strategy for Abstraction-Guided Simulation , 2007, 2007 44th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[9]  Per Bjesse,et al.  Using counter example guided abstraction refinement to find complex bugs , 2004, Proceedings Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

[10]  Tiziano Villa,et al.  VIS: A System for Verification and Synthesis , 1996, CAV.

[11]  Robin Milner,et al.  An Algebraic Definition of Simulation Between Programs , 1971, IJCAI.