M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli#, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareau, W. Visser, H. Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Verification. Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, ICSE 2001, 2001.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of technologies to cut down on the combinatorics of the reachable state space. In fact, our Java Pathfinder system incorporates static analysis algorithms [15] predicate abstraction algorithms [16] based on automated theorem proving, data abstraction algorithms based on abstract interpretation [17], and guided search techniques. The result over the last five years has been a steady increase in the number of source lines of code that can be analyzed, measured both by the size of the programs that can be analyzed before running out of main memory (the limiting factor in explicit state ....

Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Joehanes, J., Laubach, S., Pasareanu, C., Robby, Visser, W., Zheng, H,: Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (2001).

..... foo bar baz Verify baz s PA Verify foo s PA Verify bar s PA Call Graph Target PA Other Library Routines Assumption PA Verification Steps Figure 2. Compositional verification. Algorithms and Tool Description. The MAGIC tool follows the well known abstract verify refine paradigm [13, 16, 21, 27]: Step 1 : Model Creation. Extract an LTS M Imp from proc using the assumed PAs and the guard G Spec . In MAGIC, the model is computed from the control flow graph (CFG) of the program in combination with an abstraction method called predicate abstraction [16, 19, 37] To decide properties ....

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, H. Zheng, and W. Visser. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In International Conference on Software engineering, pages 177--187. IEEE Computer Society, 2001.

....However, these efforts work at the specification level, on a language with guarded commands. Doing predicate abstraction on a general purpose programming language is the novel aspect of our work. A method for constructing abstract models from Java programs has been developed in the Bandera project [17]. Their tool requires the user to provide finitedomain abstractions of data types. Predicate abstraction as implemented in C2bp is more general, as it allows the finite partitioning of a variable s possible values and additionally allows relationships between variables to be defined. Another ....

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In ICSE 01: Software Engineering (to appear), 2001.

....in systems code. Moreover, these tools cannot verify invariants or check refinement of abstractions. Recently, a few tools for checking invariants on multithreaded programs have appeared. These tools are based on a combination of abstract interpretation and model checking. The Bandera toolkit [7] uses programmer supplied data abstractions to translate multithreaded Java programs into the input languages of various model checkers. Yahav [21] describes a method to model check multithreaded Java programs using a 3 valued logic [19] to abstract the store. Since these tools explicitly consider ....

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli#, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proc. 23rd ICSE, pages 177--187, 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Toolsupported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Veri cation. In Proc. 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Toronto, Cananda., May 2001. ACM Press.

No context found.

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. P as areanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. P as areanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

Matthew B. Dwyer, John Hatcli#, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina S. Pasareanu, Robby, Willem Visser, and Hongjun Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finitestate verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Toolsupported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Veri cation. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 177-187, 2001.

No context found.

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. P as areanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

.... middle of its development cycle, written in a semi research environment, tested by the developers and contained a number of errors (Remote Agent) The analysis of the DEOS system was very well received by Honeywell and subsequently the DEOS system became the focus of a number of research e#orts [43,50, 17]. Honeywell proceeded in creating their own model checking team to analyze future DEOS enhancements as well as the applications to run on top of DEOS [7] Honeywell is continuing to extend the DEOS PROMELA model to support verification of more complex versions of DEOS. 4.1 Lessons Learned From a ....

....is called predicate abstraction [21, 1] here one replaces a predicate used in the program by a boolean variable and all updates to the variables in the predicate are changed to updates of the boolean variable. JPF2 supports predicate [50] and BANDERA supports type based abstraction [17]. In order to handle over approximations of the program behaviors we have extended Java with two special method calls that signals nondeterministic choice (random(n) that return values between 0 and n inclusive and randomBool( that return true or false) whenever the model checker encounters ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Matthew Dwyer, John Hatcli#, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina Pasareanu, Robby, Willem Visser, and Hongjun Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (to appear), Toronto, Cananda., May 2001. ACM Press.

....of our heuristics in di erent search frameworks is an interesting avenue for future study. 4. 3 The Choose free Heuristic Abstraction based on over approximations of the system behavior is a popular technique for reducing the size of the state space of a system to allow more ecient model checking [7, 11, 17, 34]. JPF supports two forms of overapproximation: predicate abstraction [34] and type based abstractions (via the BANDERA tool) 11] However, overapproximation is not well suited for error detection, since the additional behaviors introduced by the abstraction can lead to spurious errors that are ....

.... on over approximations of the system behavior is a popular technique for reducing the size of the state space of a system to allow more ecient model checking [7, 11, 17, 34] JPF supports two forms of overapproximation: predicate abstraction [34] and type based abstractions (via the BANDERA tool) [11]. However, overapproximation is not well suited for error detection, since the additional behaviors introduced by the abstraction can lead to spurious errors that are not present in the original. Eliminating spurious errors is an active area of research within the model checking community [3, 6, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Veri cation. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 177-187, 2001.

.... middle of its development cycle, written in a semi research environment, tested by the developers and contained a number of errors (Remote Agent) The analysis of the DEOS system was very well received by Honeywell and subsequently the DEOS system became the focus of a number of research efforts [43, 50, 17]. Honeywell proceeded in creating their own model checking team to analyze future DEOS enhancements as well as the applications to run on top of DEOS [7] Hon eywell is continuing to extend the DEOS PROMELA model to support verification of more complex versions of DEOS. Lessons Learned From a ....

....is called predicate abstraction [21, 1] here one replaces a predicate used in the program by a boolean variable and all updates to the variables in the predicate are changed to updates of the boolean variable. JPF2 supports predicate [50] and BANDERA supports type based abstraction [17]. In order to handle over approximations of the program behaviors we have extended .Java with two special method calls that signals nondeterministic choice (random(n) that return values between 0 and n inclusive and randomBool 0 that return true or false) whenever the model checker en counters ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Matthew Dwyer, John Hatcliff, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina Pasareanu, Robby, Willem Visser, and Hongjun Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Verification. In Proceedings of the 2$rd International Conference on Software Engineering (to appear), Toronto, Cananda., May 2001. ACM Press.

....expensive and it will be necessary to aggressively abstract the source code to enable practical checking of desired requirements. We have developed an approach, and associated tool support, for systematically abstracting Java programs in such a way that verification of requirements is preserved [2]. One difficulty with such property preserving abstraction approaches is that they may produce false negative results. We have developed an approach, and associated tool support, for analyzing such false negative results to determine if they indicate actual program defects or are simply an ....

M.B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C.S. P as areanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society.

....state of the art analysis engines for checking program property correspondence. Bandera provides support for reducing a program s state space via program slicing [15] and data abstraction. Data abstraction automates the reduction in size of the data domains over which program variables range [13]. A type inference algorithm is applied to ensure that a consistent set of abstractions are applied to program data. This type based approach to abstraction is complementary to predicate abstraction approaches that reduce a program by preserving the ability to decide specific user define ....

....representation of the signs AI. Abstract tokens are implemented as integer values, and the abstraction function and operations have straightforward implementations as Java methods. For Java basetypes, the definitions of abstract operations are automatically generated using a theorem prover (see [13] for details) Nondeterministic choice is specified by calls State space searched 2 3 5 4 6 1 Fig. 2. Model Checking on Choose free Paths to Verify.choose(n) which JPF traps during model checking and nondeterministically returns a value between 0 and n inclusive. Abstract operations execute ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M.B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C.S. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli#, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareau, W. Visser, H. Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Verification. Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, ICSE 2001, 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported Program Abstraction for Finite-state Veri - cation. In Proceedings ICSE 2001, 2001.

No context found.

M. Dwyer, J. Hatcli#, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. Pasareanu, R. V. Willem, and H. Zheng. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2001.

No context found.

Matthew B. Dwyer, John Hatcliff, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina S. Pasareanu, Robby, Hongjun Zheng, and W Visser. Tool-Supported Program Abstraction for Finite-State Verification. In Proceedings of ICSE, pages 177 -- 187, 2001.

No context found.

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, H. Zheng, and W. Visser, "Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification," in International Conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 2001, pp. 177--187.

No context found.

Matthew B. Dwyer, John Hatcliff, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina S. Pasareanu, Robby, Hongjun Zheng, and W Visser. Tool-Supported Program Abstraction for Finite-State Verification. In Proceedings of ICSE, pages 177 -- 187, 2001.

No context found.

Dwyer, M. B., J. Hatcli#, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, H. Zheng, and W. Visser: 2001, `Tool-supported program abstraction for finitestate verification'. In: International Conference on Software engineering. pp. 177--187.

No context found.

M. B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C. S. Pasareanu, Robby, W. Visser, and H. Zheng. Toolsupported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In Proc. of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

No context found.

Matthew B. Dwyer, John Hatcli#, Roby Joehanes, Shawn Laubach, Corina S. Pasareanu, Hongjun Zheng, and Willem Visser. Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In International Conference on Software engineering, pages 177--187. IEEE Computer Society, 2001.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC