We are hiring new doctoral researchers, student research assistants, and tutors. Apply now!
2 papers accepted at ASE 2024: BenchCloud and CoVeriTeam GUI

Publications

2025
  1. Zhengyang Lu, Po-Chun Chien, Nian-Ze Lee, and Vijay Ganesh. Algorithm Selection for Word-Level Hardware Model Checking (Student Abstract). In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2025. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Btor2 Funding: DFG-BRIDGE PDF
    Abstract
    We build the first machine-learning-based algorithm selection tool for hardware verification described in the Btor2 format. In addition to hardware verifiers, our tool also selects from a set of software verifiers to solve a given Btor2 instance, enabled by a Btor2-to-C translator. We propose two embeddings for a Btor2 instance, Bag of Keywords and Bit-Width Aggregation. Pairwise classifiers are applied for algorithm selection. Upon evaluation, our tool Btor2-Select solves 30.0% more instances and reduces PAR-2 by 50.2%, compared to the PDR implementation in the HWMCC'20 winner model checker AVR. Measured by the Shapley values, the software verifiers collectively contributed 27.2% to Btor2-Select's performance.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{AAAI25, author = {Zhengyang Lu and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee and Vijay Ganesh}, title = {Algorithm Selection for Word-Level Hardware Model Checking (Student Abstract)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence~(AAAI)}, pages = {}, year = {2025}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2025-AAAI.Algorithm_Selection_for_Word-Level_Hardware_Model_Checking_Student_Abstract.pdf}, abstract = {We build the first machine-learning-based algorithm selection tool for hardware verification described in the Btor2 format. In addition to hardware verifiers, our tool also selects from a set of software verifiers to solve a given Btor2 instance, enabled by a Btor2-to-C translator. We propose two embeddings for a Btor2 instance, Bag of Keywords and Bit-Width Aggregation. Pairwise classifiers are applied for algorithm selection. Upon evaluation, our tool Btor2-Select solves 30.0% more instances and reduces PAR-2 by 50.2%, compared to the PDR implementation in the HWMCC'20 winner model checker AVR. Measured by the Shapley values, the software verifiers collectively contributed 27.2% to Btor2-Select's performance.}, keyword = {Btor2}, doinone = {Unpublished: Last checked: 2024-11-18}, funding = {DFG-BRIDGE}, }

2024
  1. Dirk Beyer and Ana Cavalcanti, editors. Proceedings of the 27st International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). LNCS 14573, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57259-3 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{FASE24, title = {Proceedings of the 27st International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE)}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Ana Cavalcanti}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14573}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-031-57258-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57259-3}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://etaps.org/2024/conferences/fase/}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57259-3}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Six Years Later: Testing vs. Model Checking. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP PDF
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Six years ago, we performed the first large-scale comparison of automated test generators and software model checkers with respect to bug-finding capabilities on a benchmark set with 5 693 C programs. Since then, the International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp) has established standardized formats and community-agreed rules for the experimental comparison of test generators. With this new context, it is time to revisit our initial question: Model checkers or test generators—which tools are more effective in finding bugs in software? To answer this, we perform a comparative analysis on the tools and existing data published by two competitions, the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP) and Test-Comp. The results provide two insights: (1) Almost all test generators that participate in Test-Comp use hybrid approaches that include formal methods, and (2) while the considered model checkers are still highly competitive, they are now outperformed by the bug-finding capabilities of the considered test generators.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{TestStudy-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Six Years Later: Testing vs. Model Checking}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, doi = {}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-STTT.Six_Years_Later_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {}, abstract = {Six years ago, we performed the first large-scale comparison of automated test generators and software model checkers with respect to bug-finding capabilities on a benchmark set with 5 693 C programs. Since then, the International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp) has established standardized formats and community-agreed rules for the experimental comparison of test generators. With this new context, it is time to revisit our initial question: Model checkers or test generators—which tools are more effective in finding bugs in software? To answer this, we perform a comparative analysis on the tools and existing data published by two competitions, the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP) and Test-Comp. The results provide two insights: (1) Almost all test generators that participate in Test-Comp use hybrid approaches that include formal methods, and (2) while the considered model checkers are still highly competitive, they are now outperformed by the bug-finding capabilities of the considered test generators.}, keyword = {Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10232648}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marek Jankola, and Nian-Ze Lee. A Transferability Study of Interpolation-Based Hardware Model Checking for Software Verification. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., 1(FSE), 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3660797 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Assuring the correctness of computing systems is fundamental to our society and economy, and formal verification is a class of techniques approaching this issue with mathematical rigor. Researchers have invented numerous algorithms to automatically prove whether a computational model, e.g., a software program or a hardware digital circuit, satisfies its specification. In the past two decades, Craig interpolation has been widely used in both hardware and software verification. Despite the similarities in the theoretical foundation between hardware and software verification, previous works usually evaluate interpolation-based algorithms on only one type of verification tasks (e.g., either circuits or programs), so the conclusions of these studies do not necessarily transfer to different types of verification tasks. To investigate the transferability of research conclusions from hardware to software, we adopt two performant approaches of interpolation-based hardware model checking, (1) Interpolation-Sequence-Based Model Checking (Vizel and Grumberg, 2009) and (2) Intertwined Forward-Backward Reachability Analysis Using Interpolants (Vizel, Grumberg, and Shoham, 2013), for software verification. We implement the algorithms proposed by the two publications in the software verifier CPAchecker because it has a software-verification adoption of the first interpolation-based algorithm for hardware model checking from 2003, which the two publications use as a comparison baseline. To assess whether the claims in the two publications transfer to software verification, we conduct an extensive experiment on the largest publicly available suite of safety-verification tasks for the programming language C. Our experimental results show that the important characteristics of the two approaches for hardware model checking are transferable to software verification, and that the cross-disciplinary algorithm adoption is beneficial, as the approaches adopted from hardware model checking were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. This work consolidates the knowledge in hardware and software verification and provides open-source implementations to improve the understanding of the compared interpolation-based algorithms.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ItpTransfer-PACMSE, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marek Jankola and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {A Transferability Study of Interpolation-Based Hardware Model Checking for Software Verification}, journal = {Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.}, volume = {1}, number = {FSE}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3660797}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/dar-ismc-transferability/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-07-18_FSE_A_Transferability_Study_of_Interpolation-Based_HWMC_for_SV_Marek.pdf}, abstract = {Assuring the correctness of computing systems is fundamental to our society and economy, and <em>formal verification</em> is a class of techniques approaching this issue with mathematical rigor. Researchers have invented numerous algorithms to automatically prove whether a computational model, e.g., a software program or a hardware digital circuit, satisfies its specification. In the past two decades, <em>Craig interpolation</em> has been widely used in both hardware and software verification. Despite the similarities in the theoretical foundation between hardware and software verification, previous works usually evaluate interpolation-based algorithms on only one type of verification tasks (e.g., either circuits or programs), so the conclusions of these studies do not necessarily transfer to different types of verification tasks. To investigate the transferability of research conclusions from hardware to software, we adopt two performant approaches of interpolation-based hardware model checking, (1) <em>Interpolation-Sequence-Based Model Checking</em> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351148">Vizel and Grumberg, 2009</a>) and (2) <em>Intertwined Forward-Backward Reachability Analysis Using Interpolants</em> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_22">Vizel, Grumberg, and Shoham, 2013</a>), for software verification. We implement the algorithms proposed by the two publications in the software verifier CPAchecker because it has a software-verification adoption of the first interpolation-based algorithm for hardware model checking from 2003, which the two publications use as a comparison baseline. To assess whether the claims in the two publications transfer to software verification, we conduct an extensive experiment on the largest publicly available suite of safety-verification tasks for the programming language C. Our experimental results show that the important characteristics of the two approaches for hardware model checking are transferable to software verification, and that the cross-disciplinary algorithm adoption is beneficial, as the approaches adopted from hardware model checking were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. This work consolidates the knowledge in hardware and software verification and provides open-source implementations to improve the understanding of the compared interpolation-based algorithms.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FSE.A_Transferability_Study_of_Interpolation-Based_Hardware_Model_Checking_for_Software_Verification.pdf}, annote = {This article received the "ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award" and its reproduction artifact received the "ACM SIGSOFT Best Artifact Award" at <a href="https://2024.esec-fse.org/info/awards">FSE 2024</a>!}, articleno = {90}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.11070973}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, issue_date = {July 2024}, numpages = {23}, }
    Additional Infos
    This article received the "ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award" and its reproduction artifact received the "ACM SIGSOFT Best Artifact Award" at FSE 2024!
  4. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Kettl, and Thomas Lemberger. Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., 1(FSE), 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3660766 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (which program states reach this block) and verification conditions to check at the block exit (which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a precondition or verification condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach as an extension of the configurable-program-analysis algorithm and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{DSS-PACMSE, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis}, journal = {Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.}, volume = {1}, number = {FSE}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3660766}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/distributed-summary-synthesis/}, presentation = {}, abstract = {There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (which program states reach this block) and verification conditions to check at the block exit (which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a precondition or verification condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach as an extension of the configurable-program-analysis algorithm and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FSE.Decomposing_Software_Verification_using_Distributed_Summary_Synthesis.pdf}, articleno = {90}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.11095864}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-COOP}, issue_date = {July 2024}, numpages = {23}, }
  5. Dirk Beyer, Nian-Ze Lee, and Philipp Wendler. Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{IMC-JAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Nian-Ze Lee and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification}, journal = {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, doi = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-JAR.Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited_Adoption_to_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {}, }
  6. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Parallel program analysis on path ranges. Science of Computer Programming, 238, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2024.103154 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{RangedPA-journal, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Parallel program analysis on path ranges}, journal = {Science of Computer Programming}, volume = {238}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1016/j.scico.2024.103154}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8398988}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  7. Marie-Christine Jakobs, Einar Broch Johnsen, Eduard Kamburjan, and Manuel Wimmer. Preface for the special issue on "Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering" (FASE 2022). Science of Computer Programming, 232:103055, 2024. doi:10.1016/J.SCICO.2023.103055 Link to this entry Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{FASE2022-SI, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Einar Broch Johnsen and Eduard Kamburjan and Manuel Wimmer}, title = {Preface for the special issue on "Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering" {(FASE} 2022)}, journal = {Science of Computer Programming}, volume = {232}, pages = {103055}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1016/J.SCICO.2023.103055}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {}, }
  8. Marie-Christine Jakobs and Nian-Ze Lee. Summary of the Eighth International Workshop on CPAchecker (CPAchecker 2023). ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 49(2):25-26, 2024. doi:10.1145/3650142.3650150 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{CPAcheckerWorkshop, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Nian{-}Ze Lee}, title = {Summary of the Eighth International Workshop on CPAchecker (CPAchecker 2023)}, journal = {{ACM} {SIGSOFT} Software Engineering Notes}, volume = {49}, number = {2}, pages = {25--26}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1145/3650142.3650150}, url = {https://cpa.sosy-lab.org/2023/}, pdf = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {}, }
  9. Thomas Lemberger. Cooperative Approaches Across Test Generation and Formal Software Verification. Softwaretechnik-Trends, 44(2):66-67, July 2024. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Berlin. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{SW-Trends24, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Cooperative Approaches Across Test Generation and Formal Software Verification}, journal = {Softwaretechnik-Trends}, volume = {44}, number = {2}, pages = {66-67}, year = {2024}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Informatik, Berlin}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SWT.Cooperatives_Approaches_Across_Test_Generation_and_Formal_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, annote = {Summary of dissertation}, doinone = {DOI not available}, issn = {0720-8928}, month = {July}, }
    Additional Infos
    Summary of dissertation
  10. Salih Ates, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. MoXIchecker: An Extensible Model Checker for MoXI. In Proc. VSTTE, 2024. Springer. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-BRIDGE PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    MoXI is a new intermediate verification language introduced in 2024 to promote the standardization and open-source implementations for symbolic model checking by extending the SMT-LIB 2 language with constructs to define state-transition systems. The tool suite of MoXI provides a translator from MoXI to Btor2, which is a lower-level intermediate language for hardware verification, and a translation-based model checker, which invokes mature hardware model checkers for Btor2 to analyze the translated verification tasks. The extensibility of such a translation-based model checker is restricted because more complex theories, such as integer or real arithmetics, cannot be precisely expressed with bit-vectors of fixed lengths in Btor2. We present MoXIchecker, the first model checker that solves MoXI verification tasks directly. Instead of translating MoXI to lower-level languages, MoXIchecker uses the solver-agnostic library PySMT for SMT solvers as backend for its verification algorithms. MoXIchecker is extensible because it accommodates verification tasks involving more complex theories, not limited by lower-level languages, facilitates the implementation of new algorithms, and is solver-agnostic by using the API of PySMT. In our evaluation, MoXIchecker uniquely solved tasks that use integer or real arithmetics, and achieved a comparable performance against the translation-based model checker from the MoXI tool suite.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{VSTTE24, author = {Salih Ates and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {{MoXIchecker}: {An} Extensible Model Checker for {MoXI}}, booktitle = {Proc.\ VSTTE}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, series = {}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/moxichecker/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-VSTTE.MoXIchecker_An_Extensible_Model_Checker_for_MoXI.pdf}, presentation = {}, abstract = {MoXI is a new intermediate verification language introduced in 2024 to promote the standardization and open-source implementations for symbolic model checking by extending the SMT-LIB 2 language with constructs to define state-transition systems. The tool suite of MoXI provides a translator from MoXI to Btor2, which is a lower-level intermediate language for hardware verification, and a translation-based model checker, which invokes mature hardware model checkers for Btor2 to analyze the translated verification tasks. The extensibility of such a translation-based model checker is restricted because more complex theories, such as integer or real arithmetics, cannot be precisely expressed with bit-vectors of fixed lengths in Btor2. We present MoXIchecker, the first model checker that solves MoXI verification tasks directly. Instead of translating MoXI to lower-level languages, MoXIchecker uses the solver-agnostic library PySMT for SMT solvers as backend for its verification algorithms. MoXIchecker is extensible because it accommodates verification tasks involving more complex theories, not limited by lower-level languages, facilitates the implementation of new algorithms, and is solver-agnostic by using the API of PySMT. In our evaluation, MoXIchecker uniquely solved tasks that use integer or real arithmetics, and achieved a comparable performance against the translation-based model checker from the MoXI tool suite.}, keyword = {Btor2}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13895872}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY, DFG-BRIDGE}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Marek Jankola. BenchCloud: A Platform for Scalable Performance Benchmarking. In Proc. ASE, pages 2386-2389, 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3691620.3695358 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp) Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Performance evaluation is a crucial method for assessing automated-reasoning tools. Evaluating automated tools requires rigorous benchmarking to accurately measure resource consumption, including time and memory, which are essential for understanding the tools' capabilities. BenchExec, a widely used benchmarking framework, reliably measures resource usage for tools executed locally on a single node. This paper describes BenchCloud, a solution for elastic and scalable job distribution across hundreds of nodes, enabling large-scale experiments on distributed and heterogeneous computing environments. BenchCloud seamlessly integrates with BenchExec, allowing BenchExec to delegate the actual execution to BenchCloud. The system has been employed in several prominent international competitions in automated reasoning, including SMT-COMP, SV-COMP, and Test-Comp, underscoring its importance in rigorous tool evaluation across various research domains. It helps to ensure both internal and external validity of the experimental results. This paper presents an overview of BenchCloud's architecture and high- lights its primary use cases in facilitating scalable benchmarking.
    Demonstration video: https://youtu.be/aBfQytqPm0U
    Running system: https://benchcloud.sosy-lab.org/
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE24a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marek Jankola}, title = {{BenchCloud}: {A} Platform for Scalable Performance Benchmarking}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2386-2389}, year = {2024}, series = {}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3691620.3695358}, url = {https://benchcloud.sosy-lab.org/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-ASE24.BenchCloud_A_Platform_for_Scalable_Performance_Benchmarking.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-10-30_ASE_BenchCloud_A_Platform_for_Scalable_Performance_Benchmarking_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Performance evaluation is a crucial method for assessing automated-reasoning tools. Evaluating automated tools requires rigorous benchmarking to accurately measure resource consumption, including time and memory, which are essential for understanding the tools' capabilities. BenchExec, a widely used benchmarking framework, reliably measures resource usage for tools executed locally on a single node. This paper describes BenchCloud, a solution for elastic and scalable job distribution across hundreds of nodes, enabling large-scale experiments on distributed and heterogeneous computing environments. BenchCloud seamlessly integrates with BenchExec, allowing BenchExec to delegate the actual execution to BenchCloud. The system has been employed in several prominent international competitions in automated reasoning, including SMT-COMP, SV-COMP, and Test-Comp, underscoring its importance in rigorous tool evaluation across various research domains. It helps to ensure both internal and external validity of the experimental results. This paper presents an overview of BenchCloud's architecture and high- lights its primary use cases in facilitating scalable benchmarking. <br> Demonstration video: <a href="https://youtu.be/aBfQytqPm0U">https://youtu.be/aBfQytqPm0U</a> <br> Running system: <a href="https://benchcloud.sosy-lab.org/">https://benchcloud.sosy-lab.org/</a>}, keyword = {Benchmarking, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp)}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13742756}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP}, video = {https://youtu.be/aBfQytqPm0U}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer, Thomas Lemberger, and Henrik Wachowitz. CPA-Daemon: Mitigating Tool Restarts for Java-Based Verifiers. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA 2024, Kyoto, Japan, October 21-24), LNCS , 2024. Springer. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY PDF
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ATVA24, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {{CPA-Daemon}: Mitigating Tool Restarts for Java-Based Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA~2024, Kyoto, Japan, October 21-24)}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-ATVA.CPA-Daemon_Mitigating_Tool_Restart_for_Java-Based_Verifiers.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, artifact = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11147333}, doinone = {Unpublished: Last checked: 2024-10-01}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  13. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification with CPAchecker 3.0: Tutorial and User Guide. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM 2024, Milan, Italy, September 9-13), LNCS 14934, pages 543-570, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71177-0_30 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, k-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. An extended version also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FM24a, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification with {CPAchecker} 3.0: {Tutorial} and User Guide}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM~2024, Milan, Italy, September 9-13)}, pages = {543-570}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14934}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-71177-0_30}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FM.Software_Verification_with_CPAchecker_3.0_Tutorial_and_User_Guide.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-09-10_FM24_CPAchecker_Tutorial.pdf}, abstract = {This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, <i>k</i>-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. An extended version also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php">https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php</a>.}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#TechReport24c">extended version</a> of this article is available on <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094">arXiv</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13612338}, funding = {DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, }
    Additional Infos
    An extended version of this article is available on arXiv.
  14. Dirk Beyer, Lars Grunske, Matthias Kettl, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, and Moeketsi Raselimo. P3: A Dataset of Partial Program Patches. In Proc. MSR, 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3643991.3644889 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Partial Fix, Dataset, Mining Funding: DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Identifying and fixing bugs in programs remains a challenge and is one of the most time-consuming tasks in software development. But even after a bug is identified, and a fix has been proposed by a developer or tool, it is not uncommon that the fix is incomplete and does not cover all possible inputs that trigger the bug. This can happen quite often and leads to re-opened issues and inefficiencies. In this paper, we introduce P3, a curated dataset composed of in- complete fixes. Each entry in the set contains a series of commits fixing the same underlying issue, where multiple of the intermediate commits are incomplete fixes. These are sourced from real-world open-source C projects. The selection process involves both auto- mated and manual stages. Initially, we employ heuristics to identify potential partial fixes from repositories, subsequently we validate them through meticulous manual inspection. This process ensures the accuracy and reliability of our curated dataset. We envision that the dataset will support researchers while investigating par- tial fixes in more detail, allowing them to develop new techniques to detect and fix them.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{MSR24, author = {Dirk Beyer and Lars Grunske and Matthias Kettl and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Moeketsi Raselimo}, title = {P3: A Dataset of Partial Program Patches}, booktitle = {Proc.\ MSR}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3643991.3644889}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/research/data/partial-fix-dataset}, pdf = {}, abstract = {Identifying and fixing bugs in programs remains a challenge and is one of the most time-consuming tasks in software development. But even after a bug is identified, and a fix has been proposed by a developer or tool, it is not uncommon that the fix is incomplete and does not cover all possible inputs that trigger the bug. This can happen quite often and leads to re-opened issues and inefficiencies. In this paper, we introduce P3, a curated dataset composed of in- complete fixes. Each entry in the set contains a series of commits fixing the same underlying issue, where multiple of the intermediate commits are incomplete fixes. These are sourced from real-world open-source C projects. The selection process involves both auto- mated and manual stages. Initially, we employ heuristics to identify potential partial fixes from repositories, subsequently we validate them through meticulous manual inspection. This process ensures the accuracy and reliability of our curated dataset. We envision that the dataset will support researchers while investigating par- tial fixes in more detail, allowing them to develop new techniques to detect and fix them.}, keyword = {Partial Fix, Dataset, Mining}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10319627}, funding = {DFG-IDEFIX}, }
  15. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 227-247, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_13 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including k-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SPIN24c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {227-247}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_13}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/imc-df/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Augmenting_Interpolation-Based_Model_Checking_with_Auxiliary_Invariants.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-10_SPIN_Augmenting_IMC_with_Auxiliary_Invariants_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including <i>k</i>-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, annote = {This article received the "Best Paper Award" at SPIN 2024! An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#TechReport24a">extended version</a> of this article is available on <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821">arXiv</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548594}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
    Additional Infos
    This article received the "Best Paper Award" at SPIN 2024! An extended version of this article is available on arXiv.
  16. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Kettl, and Thomas Lemberger. Fault Localization on Verification Witnesses. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 205-224, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_12 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    When verifiers report an alarm, they export a violation witness (exchangeable counterexample) that helps validate the reachability of that alarm. Conventional wisdom says that this violation witness should be very precise: the ideal witness describes a single error path for the validator to check. But we claim that verifiers overshoot and produce large witnesses with information that makes validation unnecessarily difficult. To check our hypothesis, we reduce violation witnesses to that information that automated fault-localization approaches deem relevant for triggering the reported alarm in the program. We perform a large experimental evaluation on the witnesses produced in the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2023). It shows that our reduction shrinks the witnesses considerably and enables the confirmation of verification results that were not confirmable before.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SPIN24b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Fault Localization on Verification Witnesses}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {205-224}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_12}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Fault_Localization_on_Verification_Witnesses.pdf}, abstract = {When verifiers report an alarm, they export a violation witness (exchangeable counterexample) that helps validate the reachability of that alarm. Conventional wisdom says that this violation witness should be very precise: the ideal witness describes a single error path for the validator to check. But we claim that verifiers overshoot and produce large witnesses with information that makes validation unnecessarily difficult. To check our hypothesis, we reduce violation witnesses to that information that automated fault-localization approaches deem relevant for triggering the reported alarm in the program. We perform a large experimental evaluation on the witnesses produced in the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP 2023). It shows that our reduction shrinks the witnesses considerably and enables the confirmation of verification results that were not confirmable before.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker}, annote = {Nominated for best paper.<br> This work was also presented with a poster at the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14-20): <a href="https://sosy-lab.org/research/pst/2024-03-05_ICSE24_Fault_Localization_on_Verification_Witnesses_Poster.pdf">Extended Abstract</a>.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10794627}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-IDEFIX,DFG-COOP}, }
    Additional Infos
    Nominated for best paper.
    This work was also presented with a poster at the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2024, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14-20): Extended Abstract.
  17. Paulína Ayaziová, Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Martin Spiessl, and Jan Strejček. Software Verification Witnesses 2.0. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN 2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11), LNCS 14624, pages 184-203, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_11 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main), CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SPIN24a, author = {Paulína Ayaziová and Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl and Jan Strejček}, title = {Software Verification Witnesses 2.0}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Model Checking Software (SPIN~2024, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, April 10-11)}, pages = {184-203}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14624}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-66149-5_11}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/benchmarking/sv-witnesses/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-SPIN.Software_Verification_Witnesses_2.0.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-11_SPIN24_Software-Verification-Witnesses-2.0.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main), CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10826204}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-IDEFIX}, }
  18. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Martin Spiessl, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker 2.3 with Strategy Selection (Competition Contribution). In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 14572, pages 359-364, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    CPAchecker is a versatile framework for software verification, rooted in the established concept of configurable program analysis. Compared to the last published system description at SV-COMP 2015, the CPAchecker submission to SV-COMP 2024 incorporates new analyses for reachability safety, memory safety, termination, overflows, and data races. To combine forces of the available analyses in CPAchecker and cover the full spectrum of the diverse program characteristics and specifications in the competition, we use strategy selection to predict a sequential portfolio of analyses that is suitable for a given verification task. The prediction is guided by a set of carefully picked program features. The sequential portfolios are composed based on expert knowledge and consist of bit-precise analyses using k-induction, data-flow analysis, SMT solving, Craig interpolation, lazy abstraction, and block-abstraction memoization. The synergy of various algorithms in CPAchecker enables support for all properties and categories of C programs in SV-COMP 2024 and contributes to its success in many categories. CPAchecker also generates verification witnesses in the new YAML format.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS24c, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {{CPAchecker} 2.3 with Strategy Selection (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part~3}, pages = {359-364}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/}, abstract = {CPAchecker is a versatile framework for software verification, rooted in the established concept of configurable program analysis. Compared to the last published system description at SV-COMP 2015, the CPAchecker submission to SV-COMP 2024 incorporates new analyses for reachability safety, memory safety, termination, overflows, and data races. To combine forces of the available analyses in CPAchecker and cover the full spectrum of the diverse program characteristics and specifications in the competition, we use strategy selection to predict a sequential portfolio of analyses that is suitable for a given verification task. The prediction is guided by a set of carefully picked program features. The sequential portfolios are composed based on expert knowledge and consist of bit-precise analyses using <i>k</i>-induction, data-flow analysis, SMT solving, Craig interpolation, lazy abstraction, and block-abstraction memoization. The synergy of various algorithms in CPAchecker enables support for all properties and categories of C programs in SV-COMP 2024 and contributes to its success in many categories. CPAchecker also generates verification witnesses in the new YAML format.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.CPAchecker_2.3_with_Strategy_Selection_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10203297}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, }
  19. Dirk Beyer. State of the Art in Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2024. In B. Finkbeiner and L. Kovács, editors, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 14572, pages 299-329, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS24b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {State of the Art in Software Verification and Witness Validation: {SV-COMP 2024}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2024, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, April 6-11), part~3}, editor = {B.~Finkbeiner and L.~Kovács}, pages = {299-329}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2024/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.State_of_the_Art_in_Software_Verification_and_Witness_Validation_SV-COMP_2024.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  20. Zsófia Ádám, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Nian-Ze Lee, and Nils Sirrenberg. Btor2-Cert: A Certifying Hardware-Verification Framework Using Software Analyzers. In Proc. TACAS (3), LNCS 14572, pages 129-149, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_7 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Formal verification is essential but challenging: Even the best verifiers may produce wrong verification verdicts. Certifying verifiers enhance the confidence in verification results by generating a witness for other tools to validate the verdict independently. Recently, translating the hardware-modeling language Btor2 to software, such as the programming language C or LLVM intermediate representation, has been actively studied and facilitated verifying hardware designs by software analyzers. However, it remained unknown whether witnesses produced by software verifiers contain helpful information about the original circuits and how such information can aid hardware analysis. We propose a certifying and validating framework Btor2-Cert to verify safety properties of Btor2 circuits, combining Btor2-to-C translation, software verifiers, and a new witness validator Btor2-Val, to answer the above open questions. Btor2-Cert translates a software violation witness to a Btor2 violation witness; As the Btor2 language lacks a format for correctness witnesses, we encode invariants in software correctness witnesses as Btor2 circuits. The validator Btor2-Val checks violation witnesses by circuit simulation and correctness witnesses by validation via verification. In our evaluation, Btor2-Cert successfully utilized software witnesses to improve quality assurance of hardware. By invoking the software verifier CBMC on translated programs, it uniquely solved, with confirmed witnesses, 8% of the unsafe tasks for which the hardware verifier ABC failed to detect bugs.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS24a, author = {Zsófia Ádám and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee and Nils Sirrenberg}, title = {{Btor2-Cert}: {A} Certifying Hardware-Verification Framework Using Software Analyzers}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS~(3)}, pages = {129-149}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_7}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/btor2-cert/}, abstract = {Formal verification is essential but challenging: Even the best verifiers may produce wrong verification verdicts. Certifying verifiers enhance the confidence in verification results by generating a witness for other tools to validate the verdict independently. Recently, translating the hardware-modeling language Btor2 to software, such as the programming language C or LLVM intermediate representation, has been actively studied and facilitated verifying hardware designs by software analyzers. However, it remained unknown whether witnesses produced by software verifiers contain helpful information about the original circuits and how such information can aid hardware analysis. We propose a certifying and validating framework Btor2-Cert to verify safety properties of Btor2 circuits, combining Btor2-to-C translation, software verifiers, and a new witness validator Btor2-Val, to answer the above open questions. Btor2-Cert translates a software violation witness to a Btor2 violation witness; As the Btor2 language lacks a format for correctness witnesses, we encode invariants in software correctness witnesses as Btor2 circuits. The validator Btor2-Val checks violation witnesses by circuit simulation and correctness witnesses by validation via verification. In our evaluation, Btor2-Cert successfully utilized software witnesses to improve quality assurance of hardware. By invoking the software verifier CBMC on translated programs, it uniquely solved, with confirmed witnesses, 8&percnt; of the unsafe tasks for which the hardware verifier ABC failed to detect bugs.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.Btor2-Cert_A_Certifying_Hardware-Verification_Framework_Using_Software_Analyzers.pdf}, annote = {The reproduction package of this article received the "Distinguished Artifact Award" at TACAS 2024!}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548597}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
    Additional Infos
    The reproduction package of this article received the "Distinguished Artifact Award" at TACAS 2024!
  21. Max Barth and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Refining CEGAR-based Test-Case Generation with Feasibility Annotations. In Proc. TAP , LNCS , 2024. Springer. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing Funding: DFG-ReVeriX
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{UTestGen-Reuse, author = {Max Barth and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs}, title = {Refining CEGAR-based Test-Case Generation with Feasibility Annotations}, booktitle = {Proc.\ {TAP}}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~}, publisher = {Springer}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.11641893}, doinone = {Unpublished: Last checked: 2024-07-08}, funding = {DFG-ReVeriX}, }
  22. Max Barth and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Test-Case Generation with Automata-based Software Model Checking. In Proc. SPIN , LNCS , 2024. Springer. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{UTestGen, author = {Max Barth and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs}, title = {Test-Case Generation with Automata-based Software Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proc.\ {SPIN}}, pages = {}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~}, publisher = {Springer}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10574234}, doinone = {Unpublished: Last checked: 2024-07-08}, funding = {}, }
  23. Max Barth, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Ultimate TestGen: Test-Case Generation with Automata-based Software Model Checking (Competition Contribution). In Proc. FASE , LNCS 14573, pages 326-330, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57259-3_20 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{UTestGen-Competition, author = {Max Barth and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs}, title = {Ultimate TestGen: Test-Case Generation with Automata-based Software Model Checking (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proc.\ {FASE}}, pages = {326-330}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14573}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57259-3_20}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ultimate Automizer, Software Testing}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10071568}, funding = {}, }
  24. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Ranged Program Analysis: A Parallel Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Software Verification. In Software Engineering 2024, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, Linz, Austria, February 26 - March 1, 2024, LNI P-343, pages 157-158, 2024. GI. doi:10.18420/SW2024_52 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{JakobsSE2024, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Ranged Program Analysis: A Parallel Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Software Verification}, booktitle = {Software Engineering 2024, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, Linz, Austria, February 26 - March 1, 2024}, pages = {157-158}, year = {2024}, series = {{LNI}~{P-343}}, publisher = {GI}, doi = {10.18420/SW2024_52}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {}, }
  25. Philipp Wendler and Stefan Winter. Regression-Test History Data for Flaky Test Research. In Proc. 1st International Workshop on Flaky Tests, pages 3–4, 2024. ACM. doi:10.1145/3643656.3643901 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Testing, Flaky Tests Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Due to their random nature, flaky test failures are difficult to study. Without having observed a test to both pass and fail under the same setup, it is unknown whether a test is flaky and what its failure rate is. Thus, flaky-test research has greatly benefited from data records of previous studies, which provide evidence for flaky test failures and give a rough indication of the failure rates to expect. For assessing the impact of the studied flaky tests on developers' work, it is important to also know how flaky test failures manifest over a regression test history, i.e., under continuous changes to test code or code under test. While existing datasets on flaky tests are mostly based on re-runs on an invariant code base, the actual effects of flaky tests on development can only be assessed across the commits in an evolving commit history, against which (potentially flaky) regression tests are executed. In our presentation, we outline approaches to bridge this gap and report on our experiences following one of them. As a result of this work, we contribute a dataset of flaky test failures across a simulated regression test history.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{RegressionTestData-FTW24, author = {Philipp Wendler and Stefan Winter}, title = {Regression-Test History Data for Flaky Test Research}, booktitle = {Proc.\ 1st International Workshop on Flaky Tests}, pages = {3–4}, year = {2024}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3643656.3643901}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FTW24.Regression-Test_History_Data_for_Flaky_Test_Research.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-14_FTW24_Regression-Test_History_Data_for_Flaky_Test_Research_Stefan.html}, abstract = {Due to their random nature, flaky test failures are difficult to study. Without having observed a test to both pass and fail under the same setup, it is unknown whether a test is flaky and what its failure rate is. Thus, flaky-test research has greatly benefited from data records of previous studies, which provide evidence for flaky test failures and give a rough indication of the failure rates to expect. For assessing the impact of the studied flaky tests on developers' work, it is important to also know how flaky test failures manifest over a regression test history, i.e., under continuous changes to test code or code under test. While existing datasets on flaky tests are mostly based on re-runs on an invariant code base, the actual effects of flaky tests on development can only be assessed across the commits in an evolving commit history, against which (potentially flaky) regression tests are executed. In our presentation, we outline approaches to bridge this gap and report on our experiences following one of them. As a result of this work, we contribute a dataset of flaky test failures across a simulated regression test history.}, keyword = {Software Testing, Flaky Tests}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10639030}, keywords = {Software Testing, Dataset}, }
  26. Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz. CoVeriTeam GUI: A No-Code Approach to Cooperative Software Verification. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2024, Sacramento, CA, USA, October 27-November 1), pages 2419-2422, 2024. doi:10.1145/3691620.3695366 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    We present CoVeriTeam GUI, a No-Code web frontend to compose new software-verification workflows from existing analysis techniques. Verification approaches stopped relying on single techniques years ago, and instead combine selections that complement each other well. So far, such combinations were-under high implementation and maintenance cost-glued together with proprietary code. Now, CoVeriTeam GUI enables users to build new verification workflows without programming. Verification techniques can be combined through various composition operators in a drag-and-drop fashion directly in the browser, and an integration with a remote service allows to execute the built workflows with the click of a button. CoVeriTeam GUI is available open source under Apache 2.0: https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui
    Demonstration video: https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CoVeriTeamGUI-ASE24, author = {Thomas Lemberger and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {CoVeriTeam GUI: A No-Code Approach to Cooperative Software Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2024, Sacramento, CA, USA, October 27-November 1)}, pages = {2419-2422}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1145/3691620.3695366}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-ASE24.CoVeriTeam_GUI_A_No-Code_Approach_to_Cooperative_Software_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {}, abstract = {We present CoVeriTeam GUI, a No-Code web frontend to compose new software-verification workflows from existing analysis techniques. Verification approaches stopped relying on single techniques years ago, and instead combine selections that complement each other well. So far, such combinations were---under high implementation and maintenance cost---glued together with proprietary code. Now, CoVeriTeam GUI enables users to build new verification workflows without programming. Verification techniques can be combined through various composition operators in a drag-and-drop fashion directly in the browser, and an integration with a remote service allows to execute the built workflows with the click of a button. CoVeriTeam GUI is available open source under Apache 2.0: <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui">https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam-gui</a><br> Demonstration video: <a href="https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA">https://youtu.be/oZoOARuIOuA</a>}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13757771}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  27. Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee. CPV: A Circuit-Based Program Verifier (Competition Contribution). In Proc. TACAS, LNCS 14572, pages 365-370, 2024. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_22 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    We submit to SV-COMP 2024 CPV, a circuit-based software verifier for C programs. CPV utilizes sequential circuits as its intermediate representation and invokes hardware model checkers to analyze the reachability safety of C programs. As the frontend, it uses Kratos2, a recently proposed verification tool, to translate a C program to a sequential circuit. As the backend, state-of-the-art hardware model checkers ABC and AVR are employed to verify the translated circuits. We configure the hardware model checkers to run various analyses, including IC3/PDR, interpolation-based model checking, and k-induction. Information discovered by hardware model checkers is represented as verification witnesses. In the competition, CPV achieved comparable performance against participants whose intermediate representations are based on control-flow graphs. In the category ReachSafety, it outperformed several mature software verifiers as a first-year participant. CPV manifests the feasibility of sequential circuits as an alternative intermediate representation for program analysis and enables head-to-head algorithmic comparison between hardware and software verification.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CPV-TACAS24, author = {Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {CPV: A Circuit-Based Program Verifier (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS}, pages = {365-370}, year = {2024}, series = {LNCS~14572}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_22}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/cpv}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-TACAS.CPV_A_Circuit-Based_Program_Verifier_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-04-08_SVCOMP_CPV_A_Circuit-Based_Program_Verifier_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {We submit to SV-COMP 2024 CPV, a circuit-based software verifier for C programs. CPV utilizes sequential circuits as its intermediate representation and invokes hardware model checkers to analyze the reachability safety of C programs. As the frontend, it uses Kratos2, a recently proposed verification tool, to translate a C program to a sequential circuit. As the backend, state-of-the-art hardware model checkers ABC and AVR are employed to verify the translated circuits. We configure the hardware model checkers to run various analyses, including IC3/PDR, interpolation-based model checking, and <i>k</i>-induction. Information discovered by hardware model checkers is represented as verification witnesses. In the competition, CPV achieved comparable performance against participants whose intermediate representations are based on control-flow graphs. In the category <i>ReachSafety</i>, it outperformed several mature software verifiers as a first-year participant. CPV manifests the feasibility of sequential circuits as an alternative intermediate representation for program analysis and enables head-to-head algorithmic comparison between hardware and software verification.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10203472}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  28. Marek Jankola and Jan Strejček. Tighter Construction of Tight Büchi Automata. 2024. Springer. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Büchi Automata PDF
    Abstract
    Tight automata are useful in providing the shortest coun- terexample in LTL model checking and also in constructing a maximally satisfying strategy in LTL strategy synthesis. There exists a translation of LTL formulas to tight Büchi automata and several translations of Büchi automata to equivalent tight Büchi automata. This paper presents an- other translation of Büchi automata to equivalent tight Büchi automata. The translation is designed to produce smaller tight automata and it asymptotically improves the best-known upper bound on the size of a tight Büchi automaton equivalent to a given Büchi automaton. We also provide a lower bound, which is more precise than the previously known one. Further, we show that automata reduction methods based on quo- tienting preserve tightness. Our translation was implemented in a tool called Tightener. Experimental evaluation shows that Tightener usually produces smaller tight automata than the translation from LTL to tight automata known as CGH.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{JankolaFOSSACS2024, author = {Marek Jankola and Jan Strejček}, title = {Tighter Construction of Tight Büchi Automata}, year = {2024}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FOSSACS.Tighter_Construction_of_Tight_Buchi_Automata.pdf}, abstract = {Tight automata are useful in providing the shortest coun- terexample in LTL model checking and also in constructing a maximally satisfying strategy in LTL strategy synthesis. There exists a translation of LTL formulas to tight Büchi automata and several translations of Büchi automata to equivalent tight Büchi automata. This paper presents an- other translation of Büchi automata to equivalent tight Büchi automata. The translation is designed to produce smaller tight automata and it asymptotically improves the best-known upper bound on the size of a tight Büchi automaton equivalent to a given Büchi automaton. We also provide a lower bound, which is more precise than the previously known one. Further, we show that automata reduction methods based on quo- tienting preserve tightness. Our translation was implemented in a tool called Tightener. Experimental evaluation shows that Tightener usually produces smaller tight automata than the translation from LTL to tight automata known as CGH.}, keyword = {Büchi Automata}, }
  29. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Marek Jankola, Matthias Kettl, Nian-Ze Lee, Thomas Lemberger, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, Henrik Wachowitz, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification with CPAchecker 3.0: Tutorial and User Guide (Extended Version). Technical report 2409.02094, arXiv/CoRR, September 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, k-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. It also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php.
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport24c, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Marek Jankola and Matthias Kettl and Nian-Ze Lee and Thomas Lemberger and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Henrik Wachowitz and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Software Verification with {CPAchecker} 3.0: {Tutorial} and User Guide (Extended Version)}, number = {2409.02094}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2409.02094}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-09-10_FM24_CPAchecker_Tutorial.pdf}, abstract = {This tutorial provides an introduction to CPAchecker for users. CPAchecker is a flexible and configurable framework for software verification and testing. The framework provides many abstract domains, such as BDDs, explicit values, intervals, memory graphs, and predicates, and many program-analysis and model-checking algorithms, such as abstract interpretation, bounded model checking, Impact, interpolation-based model checking, <i>k</i>-induction, PDR, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. This tutorial presents basic use cases for CPAchecker in formal software verification, focusing on its main verification techniques with their strengths and weaknesses. It also shows further use cases of CPAchecker for test-case generation and witness-based result validation. The envisioned readers are assumed to possess a background in automatic formal verification and program analysis, but prior knowledge of CPAchecker is not required. This tutorial and user guide is based on CPAchecker in version 3.0. This user guide's latest version and other documentation are available at <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php">https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/doc.php</a>.}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#FM24a">paper</a> at FM 2024.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.13612338}, funding = {DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY, DFG-IDEFIX}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {September}, }
    Additional Infos
    This technical report is an extended version of our paper at FM 2024.
  30. Salih Ates, Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. MoXIchecker: An Extensible Model Checker for MoXI. Technical report 2407.15551, arXiv/CoRR, March 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.15551 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-BRIDGE Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    MoXI is a new intermediate verification language introduced in 2024 to promote the standardization and open-source implementations for symbolic model checking by extending the SMT-LIB 2 language with constructs to define state-transition systems. The tool suite of MoXI provides a translator from MoXI to Btor2, which is a lower-level intermediate language for hardware verification, and a translation-based model checker, which invokes mature hardware model checkers for Btor2 to analyze the translated verification tasks. The extensibility of such a translation-based model checker is restricted because more complex theories, such as integer or real arithmetics, cannot be precisely expressed with bit-vectors of fixed lengths in Btor2. We present MoXIchecker, the first model checker that solves MoXI verification tasks directly. Instead of translating MoXI to lower-level languages, MoXIchecker uses the solver-agnostic library PySMT for SMT solvers as backend for its verification algorithms. MoXIchecker is extensible because it accommodates verification tasks involving more complex theories, not limited by lower-level languages, facilitates the implementation of new algorithms, and is solver-agnostic by using the API of PySMT. In our evaluation, MoXIchecker uniquely solved tasks that use integer or real arithmetics, and achieved a comparable performance against the translation-based model checker from the MoXI tool suite.
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport24b, author = {Salih Ates and Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {{MoXIchecker}: {An} Extensible Model Checker for {MoXI}}, number = {2407.15551}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2407.15551}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/moxichecker}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15551}, abstract = {MoXI is a new intermediate verification language introduced in 2024 to promote the standardization and open-source implementations for symbolic model checking by extending the SMT-LIB 2 language with constructs to define state-transition systems. The tool suite of MoXI provides a translator from MoXI to Btor2, which is a lower-level intermediate language for hardware verification, and a translation-based model checker, which invokes mature hardware model checkers for Btor2 to analyze the translated verification tasks. The extensibility of such a translation-based model checker is restricted because more complex theories, such as integer or real arithmetics, cannot be precisely expressed with bit-vectors of fixed lengths in Btor2. We present MoXIchecker, the first model checker that solves MoXI verification tasks directly. Instead of translating MoXI to lower-level languages, MoXIchecker uses the solver-agnostic library PySMT for SMT solvers as backend for its verification algorithms. MoXIchecker is extensible because it accommodates verification tasks involving more complex theories, not limited by lower-level languages, facilitates the implementation of new algorithms, and is solver-agnostic by using the API of PySMT. In our evaluation, MoXIchecker uniquely solved tasks that use integer or real arithmetics, and achieved a comparable performance against the translation-based model checker from the MoXI tool suite.}, keyword = {Btor2}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.12787654}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-BRIDGE}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {March}, }
  31. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants (Extended Version). Technical report 2403.07821, arXiv/CoRR, March 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including k-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport24a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Augmenting Interpolation-Based Model Checking with Auxiliary Invariants (Extended Version)}, number = {2403.07821}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2403.07821}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/imc-df/}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07821}, abstract = {Software model checking is a challenging problem, and generating relevant invariants is a key factor in proving the safety properties of a program. Program invariants can be obtained by various approaches, including lightweight procedures based on data-flow analysis and intensive techniques using Craig interpolation. Although data-flow analysis runs efficiently, it often produces invariants that are too weak to prove the properties. By contrast, interpolation-based approaches build strong invariants from interpolants, but they might not scale well due to expensive interpolation procedures. Invariants can also be injected into model-checking algorithms to assist the analysis. Invariant injection has been studied for many well-known approaches, including <i>k</i>-induction, predicate abstraction, and symbolic execution. We propose an augmented interpolation-based verification algorithm that injects external invariants into interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003), a hardware model-checking algorithm recently adopted for software verification. The auxiliary invariants help prune unreachable states in Craig interpolants and confine the analysis to the reachable parts of a program. We implemented the proposed technique in the verification framework CPAchecker and evaluated it against mature SMT-based methods in CPAchecker as well as other state-of-the-art software verifiers. We found that injecting invariants reduces the number of interpolation queries needed to prove safety properties and improves the run-time efficiency. Consequently, the proposed invariant-injection approach verified difficult tasks that none of its plain version (i.e., without invariants), the invariant generator, or any compared tools could solve.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#SPIN24b">paper</a> at SPIN 2024.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.10548594}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {March}, }
    Additional Infos
    This technical report is an extended version of our paper at SPIN 2024.
  32. Po-Chun Chien. Bridging Hardware and Software Formal Verification (Extended Abstract). Technical report 2024-06, LMU Munich, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2, CPAchecker, Witness-Based Validation Funding: DFG-CONVEY PDF
    Abstract
    Modern technology relies heavily on the integration of hardware and software systems, from embedded devices in consumer electronics to safety-critical controllers. Despite their interdependence, the tools and methods used for verifying the correctness and reliability of these systems are often segregated, meaning that the advancement in one community cannot benefit another directly. Addressing this challenge, my dissertation aims at bridging the gap between hardware and software formal analysis. This involves translating representations of verification tasks, generating certificates for verification results, integrating state-of-the-art formal analysis tools into a cohesive framework, and adapting and combining model-checking algorithms across domains. By translating word-level hardware circuits into C programs, we found out that software analyzers were able to identify property violations that well-established hardware verifiers failed to detect. Moreover, by adopting interpolation-based hardware-verification algorithms for software analysis, we were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. Our research consolidates knowledge from both hardware and software domains, paving a pathway for comprehensive system-level verification.
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{chien:fm24-doc-symposium, author = {Po-Chun Chien}, title = {Bridging Hardware and Software Formal Verification (Extended Abstract)}, number = {2024-06}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2024-FM_Doctoral_Symposium.Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Formal_Verification_Extended_Abstract.pdf}, abstract = {Modern technology relies heavily on the integration of hardware and software systems, from embedded devices in consumer electronics to safety-critical controllers. Despite their interdependence, the tools and methods used for verifying the correctness and reliability of these systems are often segregated, meaning that the advancement in one community cannot benefit another directly. Addressing this challenge, my dissertation aims at bridging the gap between hardware and software formal analysis. This involves translating representations of verification tasks, generating certificates for verification results, integrating state-of-the-art formal analysis tools into a cohesive framework, and adapting and combining model-checking algorithms across domains. By translating word-level hardware circuits into C programs, we found out that software analyzers were able to identify property violations that well-established hardware verifiers failed to detect. Moreover, by adopting interpolation-based hardware-verification algorithms for software analysis, we were able to tackle tasks unsolvable by existing methods. Our research consolidates knowledge from both hardware and software domains, paving a pathway for comprehensive system-level verification.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2, CPAchecker, Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {An extended abstract of the dissertation project. Submitted to the Doctoral Symposium of FM 2024.}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, institution = {LMU Munich}, }
    Additional Infos
    An extended abstract of the dissertation project. Submitted to the Doctoral Symposium of FM 2024.
  33. Daniel Bilic. Verification of Java Micro Services based on OpenAPI Specifications. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BilicOpenAPI, author = {Daniel Bilic}, title = {Verification of Java Micro Services based on OpenAPI Specifications}, year = {2024}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  34. Felix Lindenmeier. Creating an Exchangeable Intermediate Program Representation for the Formal Software Verifier CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LindenmeierCfaJsonExport, author = {Felix Lindenmeier}, title = {Creating an Exchangeable Intermediate Program Representation for the Formal Software Verifier CPAchecker}, year = {2024}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  35. Yannick Martin. Streamlining Software Verification: A Maven Plugin for Formal Verification of Java Code. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MartinJbmcMavenPlugin, author = {Yannick Martin}, title = {Streamlining Software Verification: A Maven Plugin for Formal Verification of Java Code}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Martin.Streamlining_Software_Verification_A_Maven_Plugin_for_Formal_Verification_of_Java_Code.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  36. Ella Dubchak. From Compilation to Verification: Extending Gradle with JBMC for Enhanced Code Safety. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DubchakJbmcGradlePlugin, author = {Ella Dubchak}, title = {From Compilation to Verification: Extending Gradle with JBMC for Enhanced Code Safety}, year = {2024}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  37. Tobias Maget. Evaluation of JVM Garbage Collectors for CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Benchmarking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MagetEvaluationJVMGarbageCollectorsCPAchecker, author = {Tobias Maget}, title = {Evaluation of JVM Garbage Collectors for CPAchecker}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Maget.Evaluation_of_JVM_Garbage_Collectors_for_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2024-10-23-BA_Evaluation_of_JVM_Garbage_Collectors_for_CPAchecker_Maget.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  38. Anna Ovezova. Witness Modifications for Program Transformations: A Case Study on Side-Effect Removal. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Witnesses PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{OvezovaWitnessModificationsSideEffectsCaseStudy, author = {Anna Ovezova}, title = {Witness Modifications for Program Transformations: A Case Study on Side-Effect Removal}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Ovezova.Witness_Modifications_for_Program_Transformations_A_Case_study_on_Side-Effect_Removal.pdf}, keyword = {Witnesses}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  39. Robin Mattis. Verification of Micro Services based on Pact API Contracts. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MattisMicroserviceVerification, author = {Robin Mattis}, title = {Verification of Micro Services based on Pact API Contracts}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Mattis.Verification_of_Micro_Services_based_on_Pact_API_Contracts.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  40. Nils Sirrenberg. Certifying Software Violation Witnesses for Hardware Verification Tasks via Simulation-Based Validation. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Btor2, Witness-Based Validation PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SirrenbergBtor2ViolationWitness, author = {Nils Sirrenberg}, title = {Certifying Software Violation Witnesses for Hardware Verification Tasks via Simulation-Based Validation}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Sirrenberg.Certifying_Software_Violation_Witnesses_for_Hardware_Verification_Tasks_via_Simulation-Based_Validation.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Btor2, Witness-Based Validation}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  41. Jiacheng Chen. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ChenMemcachedVerificationAFL, author = {Jiacheng Chen}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Chen.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_AFL++.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  42. Jinke Li. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LiMemcachedVerificationGoblint, author = {Jinke Li}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Li.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Goblint.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  43. Khac Ming Le. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with FuSeBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LeMemcachedVerificationFuSeBMC, author = {Khac Ming Le}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with FuSeBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Le.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_FuSeBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  44. Enno Muehlbauer. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Ultimate Automizer. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MuehlbauerMemcachedVerificationUAutomizer, author = {Enno Muehlbauer}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Ultimate Automizer}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Muehlbauer.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Ultimate_Automizer.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  45. Karim Triki. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Taipan. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{TrikiMemcachedVerificationTaipan, author = {Karim Triki}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Taipan}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Triki.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Taipan.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  46. Ahmad Ghanem. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with ESBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GhanemMemcachedVerificationESBMC, author = {Ahmad Ghanem}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with ESBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Ghanem.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_ESBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  47. Yu-Chieh Lin. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CPAchecker and k-Induction. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LinMemcachedVerificationCPAchecker, author = {Yu-Chieh Lin}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CPAchecker and k-Induction}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Lin.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_CPAchecker_and_K-Induction.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  48. Kai Müller. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Klee. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MuellerMemcachedVerificationKlee, author = {Kai Müller}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Klee}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Mueller.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Klee.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  49. Rania Qteishat. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CBMC. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{QteishatMemcachedVerificationCBMC, author = {Rania Qteishat}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with CBMC}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Qteishat.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_CBMC.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  50. Dinghao Shi. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ShiMemcachedVerificationAFL, author = {Dinghao Shi}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with AFL++}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Shi.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_AFL++.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  51. Tong Wu. Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{WuMemcachedVerificationGoblint, author = {Tong Wu}, title = {Automated Verification of the C Implementation of memcached with Goblint}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Wu.Automated_Verification_of_the_C_Implementation_of_memcached_with_Goblint.restricted.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  52. Marko Ristic. A Library for Unit Verification. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RisticUnitVerification, author = {Marko Ristic}, title = {A Library for Unit Verification}, year = {2024}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2024.Ristic.A_Library_for_Unit_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  53. Khrystyna Reichel. Auswahl des Testalgorithmus mittels boolescher Merkmale. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{TestAlgorithmSelection, author = {Khrystyna Reichel}, title = {Auswahl des Testalgorithmus mittels boolescher Merkmale}, year = {2024}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  54. Iurii Irkha. Auswahl der Zeitlimits für CoVeriTest mittels boolescher Merkmale. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2024. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{TestTimeSelection, author = {Iurii Irkha}, title = {Auswahl der Zeitlimits für CoVeriTest mittels boolescher Merkmale}, year = {2024}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2023
  1. Manfred Broy, Albrecht Schmidt, and Martin Wirsing. In memory of Heinrich Hussmann, long-time friend and SoSyM editor. Softw. Syst. Model., 22(2):453-454, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10270-023-01099-0 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{NachrufHussmann, author = {Manfred Broy and Albrecht Schmidt and Martin Wirsing}, title = {In memory of Heinrich Hussmann, long-time friend and SoSyM editor}, journal = {Softw. Syst. Model.}, volume = {22}, number = {2}, pages = {453--454}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.1007/s10270-023-01099-0}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-SoSyM.In_memory_of_Heinrich_Hussmann_long-time_friend_and_SoSyM_editor.pdf}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. CPA-DF: A Tool for Configurable Interval Analysis to Boost Program Verification. In Proc. ASE, pages 2050-2053, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00213 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Software verification is challenging, and auxiliary program invariants are used to improve the effectiveness of verification approaches. For instance, the k-induction implementation in CPAchecker, an award-winning framework for program analysis, uses invariants produced by a configurable data-flow analysis to strengthen induction hypotheses. This invariant generator, CPA-DF, uses arithmetic expressions over intervals as its abstract domain and is able to prove some safe verification tasks alone. After extensively evaluating CPA-DF on SV-Benchmarks, the largest publicly available suite of C safety-verification tasks, we discover that its potential as a stand-alone analysis or a sub-analysis in a parallel portfolio for combined verification approaches has been significantly underestimated: (1) As a stand-alone analysis, CPA-DF finds almost as many proofs as the plain k-induction implementation without auxiliary invariants. (2) As a sub-analysis running in parallel to the plain k-induction implementation, CPA-DF boosts the portfolio verifier to solve a comparable amount of tasks as the heavily-optimized k-induction implementation with invariant injection. Our detailed analysis reveals that dynamic precision adjustment is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of CPA-DF. To generalize our results beyond CPAchecker, we use CoVeriTeam, a platform for cooperative verification, to compose three portfolio verifiers that execute CPA-DF and three other software verifiers in parallel, respectively. Surprisingly, running CPA-DF merely in parallel to these state-of-the-art tools further boosts the number of correct results up to more than 20%.
    Demonstration video: https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE23a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {{CPA-DF}: {A} Tool for Configurable Interval Analysis to Boost Program Verification}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2050-2053}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00213}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-df/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.CPA-DF_A_Tool_for_Configurable_Interval_Analysis_to_Boost_Program_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-09-13_ASE_CPA-DF_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Software verification is challenging, and auxiliary program invariants are used to improve the effectiveness of verification approaches. For instance, the <i>k</i>-induction implementation in <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/">CPAchecker</a>, an award-winning framework for program analysis, uses invariants produced by a configurable data-flow analysis to strengthen induction hypotheses. This invariant generator, CPA-DF, uses arithmetic expressions over intervals as its abstract domain and is able to prove some safe verification tasks alone. After extensively evaluating CPA-DF on <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/benchmarking/sv-benchmarks">SV-Benchmarks</a>, the largest publicly available suite of C safety-verification tasks, we discover that its potential as a stand-alone analysis or a sub-analysis in a parallel portfolio for combined verification approaches has been significantly underestimated: (1) As a stand-alone analysis, CPA-DF finds almost as many proofs as the plain <i>k</i>-induction implementation without auxiliary invariants. (2) As a sub-analysis running in parallel to the plain <i>k</i>-induction implementation, CPA-DF boosts the portfolio verifier to solve a comparable amount of tasks as the heavily-optimized <i>k</i>-induction implementation with invariant injection. Our detailed analysis reveals that dynamic precision adjustment is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of CPA-DF. To generalize our results beyond CPAchecker, we use <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/coveriteam">CoVeriTeam</a>, a platform for cooperative verification, to compose three portfolio verifiers that execute CPA-DF and three other software verifiers in parallel, respectively. Surprisingly, running CPA-DF merely in parallel to these state-of-the-art tools further boosts the number of correct results up to more than 20&percnt;. <br> Demonstration video: <a href="https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4">https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4</a>}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, CPAchecker}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8245821}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/l7UG-vhTL_4}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. LIV: Invariant Validation using Straight-Line Programs. In Proc. ASE, pages 2074-2077, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00214 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Validation of correctness proofs is an established procedure in software verification. While there are steady advances when it comes to verification of more and more complex software systems, it becomes increasingly hard to determine which information is actually useful for validation of the correctness proof. Usually, the central piece that verifiers struggle to come up with are good loop invariants. While a proof using inductive invariants is easy to validate, not all invariants used by verifiers necessarily are inductive. In order to alleviate this problem, we propose LIV, an approach that makes it easy to check if the invariant information provided by the verifier is sufficient to establish an inductive proof. This is done by emulating a Hoare-style proof, splitting the program into Hoare triples and converting these into verification tasks that can themselves be efficiently verified by an off-the-shelf verifier. In case the validation fails, useful information about the failure reason can be extracted from the overview of which triples could be established and which were refuted. We show that our approach works by evaluating it on a state-of-the-art benchmark set.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE23b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {{LIV}: {Invariant} Validation using Straight-Line Programs}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2074-2077}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00214}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/liv}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.LIV_Loop-Invariant_Validation_using_Straight-Line_Programs.pdf}, abstract = {Validation of correctness proofs is an established procedure in software verification. While there are steady advances when it comes to verification of more and more complex software systems, it becomes increasingly hard to determine which information is actually useful for validation of the correctness proof. Usually, the central piece that verifiers struggle to come up with are good loop invariants. While a proof using inductive invariants is easy to validate, not all invariants used by verifiers necessarily are inductive. In order to alleviate this problem, we propose LIV, an approach that makes it easy to check if the invariant information provided by the verifier is sufficient to establish an inductive proof. This is done by emulating a Hoare-style proof, splitting the program into Hoare triples and converting these into verification tasks that can themselves be efficiently verified by an off-the-shelf verifier. In case the validation fails, useful information about the failure reason can be extracted from the overview of which triples could be established and which were refuted. We show that our approach works by evaluating it on a state-of-the-art benchmark set.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8289101}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/mZhoGAa08Rk}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld, and Martin Spiessl. CEGAR-PT: A Tool for Abstraction by Program Transformation. In Proc. ASE, pages 2078-2081, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00215 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Video Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Abstraction is a key technology for proving the correctness of computer programs. There are many approaches available, but unfortunately, the various techniques are difficult to combine and the successful techniques have to be re-implemented again and again.
    We address this problem by using the tool CEGAR-PT, which views abstraction as program transformation and integrates different verification components off-the-shelf. The idea is to use existing components without having to change their implementation, while still adjusting the precision of the abstraction using the successful CEGAR approach. The approach is largely general: it only restricts the abstraction to transform, given a precision that defines the level of abstraction, one program into another program. The abstraction by program transformation can over-approximate the data flow (e.g., havoc some variables, use more abstract types) or the control flow (e.g., loop abstraction, slicing).
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE23c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch-Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl}, title = {{CEGAR-PT}: {A} Tool for Abstraction by Program Transformation}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ASE}, pages = {2078-2081}, year = {2023}, series = {}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00215}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cegar-pt}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ASE.CEGAR-PT_A_Tool_for_Abstraction_by_Program_Transformation.pdf}, abstract = {Abstraction is a key technology for proving the correctness of computer programs. There are many approaches available, but unfortunately, the various techniques are difficult to combine and the successful techniques have to be re-implemented again and again. <br> We address this problem by using the tool CEGAR-PT, which views abstraction as program transformation and integrates different verification components off-the-shelf. The idea is to use existing components without having to change their implementation, while still adjusting the precision of the abstraction using the successful CEGAR approach. The approach is largely general: it only restricts the abstraction to transform, given a precision that defines the level of abstraction, one program into another program. The abstraction by program transformation can over-approximate the data flow (e.g., havoc some variables, use more abstract types) or the control flow (e.g., loop abstraction, slicing).}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8287183}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, video = {https://youtu.be/ASZ6hoq8asE}, }
  5. Dirk Beyer, Sudeep Kanav, and Henrik Wachowitz. CoVeriTeam Service: Verification as a Service. In Proc. ICSE, pages 21-25, 2023. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00017 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Incremental Verification, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-CONVEY, DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    The research community has developed numerous tools for solving verification problems, but we are missing a common interface for executing them. This means users have to spend considerable effort on the installation and parameter setup, for each new tool (version) they want to execute. The situation could make a verification researcher wanting to experiment with a new verification tool turn away from it. We aim to make it easier for users to execute verification tools, as well as provide mechanism for tool developers to make their tools easily accessible. Our solution combines a web service and a common interface for verification tools. The presented service has been used during the 2023 competitions on software verification and testing, for integration testing. As another use- case, we developed a service for incremental verification on top of the CoVeriTeam Service and demonstrate its use in a continuous-integration process.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ICSE23, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav and Henrik Wachowitz}, title = {{CoVeriTeam Service}: {Verification} as a Service}, booktitle = {Proc.\ ICSE}, pages = {21-25}, year = {2023}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00017}, url = {https://coveriteam-service.sosy-lab.org/static/index.html}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-ICSE.CoVeriTeam_Service_Verification_as_a_Service.pdf}, abstract = {The research community has developed numerous tools for solving verification problems, but we are missing a common interface for executing them. This means users have to spend considerable effort on the installation and parameter setup, for each new tool (version) they want to execute. The situation could make a verification researcher wanting to experiment with a new verification tool turn away from it. We aim to make it easier for users to execute verification tools, as well as provide mechanism for tool developers to make their tools easily accessible. Our solution combines a web service and a common interface for verification tools. The presented service has been used during the 2023 competitions on software verification and testing, for integration testing. As another use- case, we developed a service for incremental verification on top of the {CoVeriTeam} Service and demonstrate its use in a continuous-integration process.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Incremental Verification,Cooperative Verification}, _sha256 = {604dd391b6a49e46e97b6faafbb3cc331ccf5c04e3d364cf1e76a2c99c1c267f}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.7276532}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY,DFG-COOP}, }
  6. Dirk Beyer. Software Testing: 5th Comparative Evaluation: Test-Comp 2023. In L. Lambers and S. Uchitel, editors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2023, Paris, France, April 22-27), LNCS 13991, pages 309-323, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_17 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE23, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Testing: 5th Comparative Evaluation: {Test-Comp 2023}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2023, Paris, France, April 22-27)}, editor = {L. Lambers and S. Uchitel}, pages = {309--323}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13991}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_17}, sha256 = {7110c26bf3c9311f84346a108a59318687bdadde4879f83d047f1a0fc546b630}, url = {https://test-comp.sosy-lab.org/2023/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-FASE.Software_Testing_5th_Comparative_Evaluation_Test-Comp_2023.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer. Competition on Software Verification and Witness Validation: SV-COMP 2023. In S. Sankaranarayanan and N. Sharygina, editors, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2023, Paris, France, April 22-27), LNCS 13994, pages 495-522, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS23b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Competition on Software Verification and Witness Validation: {SV-COMP 2023}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2023, Paris, France, April 22-27)}, editor = {S. Sankaranarayanan and N. Sharygina}, pages = {495--522}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13994}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29}, sha256 = {1d35ae38d4e87c267ccc34cba880994b6f6a7927491ec13ba3cc548a29e81e5c}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2023/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-TACAS.Competition_on_Software_Verification_and_Witness_Validation_SV-COMP_2023.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  8. Dirk Beyer, Po-Chun Chien, and Nian-Ze Lee. Bridging Hardware and Software Analysis with Btor2C: A Word-Level-Circuit-to-C Translator. In Proc. TACAS, LNCS 13994, pages 152-172, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_12 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2 Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Across the broad field for the analysis of computational systems, research endeavors are often categorized by the respective models under investigation. Algorithms and tools are usually developed for a specific model, hindering their applications to similar problems originating from other computational systems. A prominent example of such situation is the studies on formal verification and testing for hardware and software systems. The two research communities share common theoretical foundations and solving methods, including satisfiability, interpolation, and abstraction refinement. Nevertheless, it is often demanding for one community to benefit from the advancements of the other, as analyzers typically assume a particular input format. To bridge the gap between the hardware and software analysis, we propose Btor2C, a converter from word-level sequential circuits to C programs. We choose the Btor2 language as the input format for its simplicity and bit-precise semantics. It can be deemed as an intermediate representation tailored for analysis. Given a Btor2 circuit, Btor2C generates a behaviorally equivalent program in the C language, supported by most static program analyzers. We demonstrate the use cases of Btor2C by translating the benchmark set from the Hardware Model Checking Competitions into C programs and analyze them by tools from the Competitions on Software Verification and Testing. Our results show that software analyzers can complement hardware verifiers for enhanced quality assurance.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS23a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Po-Chun Chien and Nian-Ze Lee}, title = {Bridging Hardware and Software Analysis with {Btor2C}: {A} Word-Level-Circuit-to-{C} Translator}, booktitle = {Proc.\ TACAS}, pages = {152-172}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13994}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_12}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/btor2c/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-04-26_TACAS23_Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Analysis_with_Btor2C_Po-Chun.pdf}, abstract = {Across the broad field for the analysis of computational systems, research endeavors are often categorized by the respective models under investigation. Algorithms and tools are usually developed for a specific model, hindering their applications to similar problems originating from other computational systems. A prominent example of such situation is the studies on formal verification and testing for hardware and software systems. The two research communities share common theoretical foundations and solving methods, including satisfiability, interpolation, and abstraction refinement. Nevertheless, it is often demanding for one community to benefit from the advancements of the other, as analyzers typically assume a particular input format. To bridge the gap between the hardware and software analysis, we propose Btor2C, a converter from word-level sequential circuits to C programs. We choose <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_32">the Btor2 language</a> as the input format for its simplicity and bit-precise semantics. It can be deemed as an intermediate representation tailored for analysis. Given a Btor2 circuit, Btor2C generates a behaviorally equivalent program in the C language, supported by most static program analyzers. We demonstrate the use cases of Btor2C by translating the benchmark set from the Hardware Model Checking Competitions into C programs and analyze them by tools from the Competitions on Software Verification and Testing. Our results show that software analyzers can complement hardware verifiers for enhanced quality assurance.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification, Btor2}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-TACAS.Bridging_Hardware_and_Software_Analysis_with_Btor2C_A_Word-Level-Circuit-to-C_Translator.pdf}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.7551707}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  9. Dirk Beyer, Jan Haltermann, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Component-based CEGAR - Building Software Verifiers from Off-the-Shelf Components. In G. Engels, R. Hebig, and M. Tichy, editors, Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn, LNI P-332, pages 37-38, 2023. GI. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE23, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Haltermann and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Component-based {CEGAR} - Building Software Verifiers from Off-the-Shelf Components}, booktitle = {Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn}, editor = {G.~Engels and R.~Hebig and M.~Tichy}, pages = {37--38}, year = {2023}, series = {{LNI}~P-332}, publisher = {{GI}}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-SE.Component-based_CEGAR_Building_Software_Verifiers_from_Off-the-Shelf_Components.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2022.html#ICSE22">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2022.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, isbnnote = {978-3-88579-726-5}, urlpub = {https://dspace.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/40128}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2022.
  10. Marie-Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt. diffDP: Using Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions. In Proc. iFM, LNCS 14300, pages 40-61, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47705-8_3 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{diffDP, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt}, title = {diffDP: Using Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions}, booktitle = {Proc.\ iFM}, pages = {40-61}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~14300}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-47705-8_3}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8272913}, funding = {Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX}, }
  11. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Ranged Program Analysis via Instrumentation. In Proc. SEFM, LNCS 14323, pages 145-164, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47115-5_9 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Ranged Program Analysis, Program Instrumentation Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{RangedPAwithInstrumentation, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Ranged Program Analysis via Instrumentation}, booktitle = {Proc.\ SEFM}, pages = {145-164}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~14323}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-47115-5_9}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Ranged Program Analysis, Program Instrumentation}, annote = {}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8065229}, funding = {}, }
  12. Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Cedric Richter, and Heike Wehrheim. Parallel Program Analysis via Range Splitting. In Proc. FASE, LNCS 13991, pages 195-219, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_11 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{RangedPA-CPA, author = {Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Cedric Richter and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Parallel Program Analysis via Range Splitting}, booktitle = {Proc.\ {FASE}}, pages = {195--219}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13991}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-30826-0_11}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Ranged Program Analysis, Cooperative Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {}, artifact = {}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  13. Cedric Richter, Jan Haltermann, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Felix Pauck, Stefan Schott, and Heike Wehrheim. Variable Misuse Detection: Software Developers versus Neural Bug Detectors. In Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn, LNI P-332, pages 103-104, 2023. GI. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Bug Detection, Empirical Study Publisher's Version
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{JakobsSE2023, author = {Cedric Richter and Jan Haltermann and Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Felix Pauck and Stefan Schott and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Variable Misuse Detection: Software Developers versus Neural Bug Detectors}, booktitle = {Software Engineering 2023, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 20.-24. Februar 2023, Paderborn}, pages = {103-104}, year = {2023}, series = {{LNI}~{P-332}}, publisher = {GI}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Bug Detection, Empirical Study}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.6958242}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/40105}, }
  14. Maurice ter Beek, Rolf Hennicker, and José Proença. Realisability of Global Models of Interaction. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC) 2023, 2023. Link to this entry
    Abstract
    We consider global models of communicating agents specified as transition systems labelled by interactions in which multiple senders and receivers can participate. A realisation of such a model is a set of local transition systems—one for each agent—which are executed concurrently using synchronous communication. Our core challenge is how to check whether a global model is realisable and, if it is, how to synthesise a realisation. We identify and compare two variants to realise global interaction models, both relying on bisimulation equivalence. Then we investigate, for both variants, realisability conditions to be checked on global models. We propose a synthesis method for the construction of realisations by grouping locally indistinguishable states. The paper is accompanied by a tool that implements realisability checks and synthesises realisations.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{HennickerICTAC23, author = {Maurice ter Beek and Rolf Hennicker and José Proença}, title = {Realisability of Global Models of Interaction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC) 2023}, year = {2023}, abstract = {We consider global models of communicating agents specified as transition systems labelled by interactions in which multiple senders and receivers can participate. A realisation of such a model is a set of local transition systems—one for each agent—which are executed concurrently using synchronous communication. Our core challenge is how to check whether a global model is realisable and, if it is, how to synthesise a realisation. We identify and compare two variants to realise global interaction models, both relying on bisimulation equivalence. Then we investigate, for both variants, realisability conditions to be checked on global models. We propose a synthesis method for the construction of realisations by grouping locally indistinguishable states. The paper is accompanied by a tool that implements realisability checks and synthesises realisations.}, }
  15. Lenz Belzner, Thomas Gabor, and Martin Wirsing. Large Language Model Assisted Software Engineering: Prospects, Challenges, and a Case Study. In Bernhard Steffen, editors, Proc. AISoLA, LNCS 14380, 2023. Springer. Link to this entry To appear. PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{WirsingAISoLA23, author = {Lenz Belzner and Thomas Gabor and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Large Language Model Assisted Software Engineering: Prospects, Challenges, and a Case Study}, booktitle = {Proc. AISoLA}, editor = {Bernhard Steffen}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~14380}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-AISoLA.Large_Language_Model_Assisted_Software_Engineering.pdf}, note = {To appear.}, }
  16. Martin Wirsing and Lenz Belzner. Towards Systematically Engineering Autonomous Systems using Reinforcement Learning and Planning. In In Pedro López-García, John P. Gallagher, and Roberto Giacobazzi, editors, Analysis, Verification and Transformation for Declarative Programming and Intelligent Systems - Essays Dedicated to Manuel Hermenegildo on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, LNCS 13160, pages 281-306, 2023. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31476-6_16 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{WirsingAVERTIS23, author = {Martin Wirsing and Lenz Belzner}, title = {Towards Systematically Engineering Autonomous Systems using Reinforcement Learning and Planning}, booktitle = {Analysis, Verification and Transformation for Declarative Programming and Intelligent Systems - Essays Dedicated to Manuel Hermenegildo on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday}, editor = {In Pedro López-García and John P. Gallagher and Roberto Giacobazzi}, pages = {281--306}, year = {2023}, series = {LNCS~13160}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-31476-6_16}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2023-AVERTIS.Towards_Systematically_Engineering_Autonomous_Systems_using_Reinforcement_Learning_and_Planning.pdf}, }
  17. Marie-Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt. Incorporating Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions (Technical Report). Technical report 2309.01585, arXiv/CoRR, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2309.01585 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{diffDP-TechReport, author = {Marie{-}Christine Jakobs and Tim Pollandt}, title = {Incorporating Data Dependencies and Properties in Difference Verification with Conditions (Technical Report)}, number = {2309.01585}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2309.01585}, url = {}, pdf = {}, keyword = {Incremental Verification, Regression Verification, Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, annote = {This technical report is an extended version of our <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/All/index.html#diffDP">paper</a> at iFM 2023.}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.8272913}, funding = {Software-Factory 4.0, DFG-ReVeriX}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, }
    Additional Infos
    This technical report is an extended version of our paper at iFM 2023.
  18. Benedikt Damböck. Verification of Java Programs with Exceptions with CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DamboeckJavaExceptions, author = {Benedikt Damböck}, title = {Verification of Java Programs with Exceptions with CPAchecker}, year = {2023}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2023.Damboeck.Verification_of_Java_Programs_with_Exceptions_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-12-06_MA_Verification_of_Java_Programs_with_Exceptions_with_CPAchecker_Damboeck.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  19. Heinrich Dennis Simon Lindner. Extending the Framework JavaSMT with the SMT Solver Bitwuzla and Evaluation using CPAchecker. at LMU Munich, Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT, SMT, Bitwuzla, CPAchecker PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LindnerDefense, author = {Heinrich Dennis Simon Lindner}, title = {Extending the Framework JavaSMT with the SMT Solver Bitwuzla and Evaluation using CPAchecker}, year = {2023}, pdf = {2023.Lindner.Extending_the_Framework_JavaSMT_with_the_SMT_Solver_Bitwuzla_and_Evaluation_using_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {JavaSMT, SMT, Bitwuzla, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, venue = {LMU Munich}, }
  20. Winnie Lilith Sofia Ros. Extending the JavaSMT Framework with the Apron Library for Numerical Abstract Domain with subsequent Usability Assessment. at LMU Munich, Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Apron, SMT, Abstract Interpretation, JavaSMT PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RosBA, author = {Winnie Lilith Sofia Ros}, title = {Extending the JavaSMT Framework with the Apron Library for Numerical Abstract Domain with subsequent Usability Assessment}, year = {2023}, pdf = {2023.Ros.Extending_the_JavaSMT_Framework_with_the_Apron_Library_for_Numerical_Abstract_Domain_with_subsequent_Usability_Assessment.pdf}, keyword = {Apron, SMT, Abstract Interpretation, JavaSMT}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, venue = {LMU Munich}, }
  21. Daniel Raffler. Adding the SMT solver OpenSMT2 to the JavaSMT Framework and Evaluation using CPAchecker. at LMU Munich, Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): SMT, JavaSMT, OpenSMT2, CPAchecker PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RafflerBA, author = {Daniel Raffler}, title = {Adding the SMT solver OpenSMT2 to the JavaSMT Framework and Evaluation using CPAchecker}, year = {2023}, pdf = {2023.Raffler.Adding_the_SMT_solver_OpenSMT2_to_the_JavaSMT_Framework_and_Evaluation_using_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {SMT, JavaSMT, OpenSMT2, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, venue = {LMU Munich}, }
  22. Janelle King. Implementing a Solver-Independent SMT-LIB2 Parser-Interpreter and Code-Generator for JavaSMT with Subsequent Evaluation. at LMU Munich, Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT, SMT-LIB2, SMT, CPAchecker PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KingBA, author = {Janelle King}, title = {Implementing a Solver-Independent SMT-LIB2 Parser-Interpreter and Code-Generator for JavaSMT with Subsequent Evaluation}, year = {2023}, pdf = {2023.King.Implementing_a_Solver-Independent_SMT-LIB2_Parser-Interpreter_and_Code-Generator_for_JavaSMT_with_Subsequent_Evaluation.pdf}, keyword = {JavaSMT, SMT-LIB2, SMT, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, venue = {LMU Munich}, }
  23. Charlotte Gall. Updating the BenchExec Core Assignment for Modern CPU Architecture. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GallBenchexecCoreAssignment, author = {Charlotte Gall}, title = {Updating the BenchExec Core Assignment for Modern CPU Architecture}, year = {2023}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  24. Jens Linden. Scaling Formal Verification: Parallel Analysis of Functions in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LindenParallelAnalysis, author = {Jens Linden}, title = {Scaling Formal Verification: Parallel Analysis of Functions in CPAchecker}, year = {2023}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  25. Moritz Bierwirth. Designing and Assessing a Benchmark Set for Fault Localization Using Fault Injection. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarks PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BierwirthFLBenchmarks, author = {Moritz Bierwirth}, title = {Designing and Assessing a Benchmark Set for Fault Localization Using Fault Injection}, year = {2023}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2023.Bierwirth.Designing_and_Assessing_a_Benchmark_Set_for_Fault_Localization_Using_Fault_Injection.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarks}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  26. Salih Ates. Improving the Encoding of Arrays in Btor2-to-C Translation. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Btor2, Arrays PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AtesBtor2CArray, author = {Salih Ates}, title = {Improving the Encoding of Arrays in Btor2-to-C Translation}, year = {2023}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2023.Ates.Improving_the_Encoding_of_Arrays_in_Btor2-to-C_Translation.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2023-08-30_BA_Improving_the_Encoding_of_Arrays_in_Btor2-to-C_Translation_Salih_Ates.pdf}, keyword = {Btor2, Arrays}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Dusica Weisbarth. Ethics-based requirements analysis for a triage software: a case study. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2023. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{WeisbarthAnforderungsanalyse, author = {Dusica Weisbarth}, title = {Ethics-based requirements analysis for a triage software: a case study}, year = {2023}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2022
  1. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. Verification Witnesses. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31(4):57:1-57:69, 2022. doi:10.1145/3477579 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Witnesses-TOSEM, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Thomas Lemberger and Michael Tautschnig}, title = {Verification Witnesses}, journal = {ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.}, volume = {31}, number = {4}, pages = {57:1-57:69}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1145/3477579}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/verification-witnesses-tosem/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TOSEM.Verification_Witnesses.pdf}, _sha256 = {48acf3f35251df635e829b29fe8f16fd50498f8f99a082b8b9e0aa094a97a432}, }
  2. Martin Wirsing and and Alexander Knapp. A Reduction-based Cut-free Gentzen Calculus for Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 12 2022. doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzac078 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract
    Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a multi-modal logic for reasoning about the change of knowledge in multi-agent systems. It extends epistemic logic by a modal operator for actions which announce logical formulas to other agents. In Hilbert-style proof calculi for DEL, modal action formulas are reduced to epistemic logic, whereas current sequent calculi for DEL are labelled systems which internalize the semantic accessibility relation of the modal operators, as well as the accessibility relation underlying the semantics of the actions. We present a novel cut-free ordinary sequent calculus, called G4_P,A[], for propositional DEL. In contrast to the known sequent calculi, our calculus does not internalize the accessibility relations, but—similar to Hilbert style proof calculi—action formulas are reduced to epistemic formulas. Since no ordinary sequent calculus for full S5 modal logic is known, the proof rules for the knowledge operator and the Boolean operators are those of an underlying S4 modal calculus. We show the soundness and completeness of G4_P,A[] and prove also the admissibility of the cut-rule and of several other rules for introducing the action modality.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{WirsingJ22, author = {Martin Wirsing and and Alexander Knapp}, title = {A Reduction-based Cut-free Gentzen Calculus for Dynamic Epistemic Logic}, journal = {Logic Journal of the IGPL}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1093/jigpal/jzac078}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-LogJIGPL.A_Reduction-based_Cut-free_Gentzen_Calculus_for_Dynamic_Epistemic_Logic.pdf}, abstract = {Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a multi-modal logic for reasoning about the change of knowledge in multi-agent systems. It extends epistemic logic by a modal operator for actions which announce logical formulas to other agents. In Hilbert-style proof calculi for DEL, modal action formulas are reduced to epistemic logic, whereas current sequent calculi for DEL are labelled systems which internalize the semantic accessibility relation of the modal operators, as well as the accessibility relation underlying the semantics of the actions. We present a novel cut-free ordinary sequent calculus, called G4_P,A[], for propositional DEL. In contrast to the known sequent calculi, our calculus does not internalize the accessibility relations, but—similar to Hilbert style proof calculi—action formulas are reduced to epistemic formulas. Since no ordinary sequent calculus for full S5 modal logic is known, the proof rules for the knowledge operator and the Boolean operators are those of an underlying S4 modal calculus. We show the soundness and completeness of G4_P,A[] and prove also the admissibility of the cut-rule and of several other rules for introducing the action modality.}, issn = {1367-0751}, month = {12}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer and Andreas Podelski. Software Model Checking: 20 Years and Beyond. In Principles of Systems Design, LNCS 13660, pages 554-582, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22337-2_27 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{Henzinger22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Podelski}, title = {Software Model Checking: 20 Years and Beyond}, booktitle = {Principles of Systems Design}, pages = {554-582}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13660}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-22337-2_27}, sha256 = {87a441617d1194266dff5fd5bd143370e9b318e72848b2d6e3c49f152a136799}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {}, editors = {J-F.~Raskin and K.~Chatterjee and L.~Doyen and R.~Majumdar}, funding = {}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer and Jan Strejček. Case Study on Verification-Witness Validators: Where We Are and Where We Go. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Static Analysis, (SAS 2022, Auckland, New Zealand, December 5-7, 2022), LNCS 13790, pages 160-174, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22308-2_8 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SAS22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Strejček}, title = {Case Study on Verification-Witness Validators: Where We Are and Where We Go}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Static Analysis, (SAS~2022, Auckland, New Zealand, December 5-7, 2022)}, pages = {160-174}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13790}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-22308-2_8}, sha256 = {8003de86c73be27da528c44f440a49cd03a877649c9cb61a328a37507bc963da}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {}, editors = {Gagandeep Singh and Caterina Urban}, funding = {}, }
  5. Stefan Winter, Christopher Steven Timperley, Ben Hermann, Jürgen Cito, Jonathan Bell, Michael Hilton, and Dirk Beyer. A Retrospective Study of One Decade of Artifact Evaluations. In Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim, editors, Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, pages 145-156, 2022. ACM. doi:10.1145/3540250.3549172 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FSE22, author = {Stefan Winter and Christopher Steven Timperley and Ben Hermann and Jürgen Cito and Jonathan Bell and Michael Hilton and Dirk Beyer}, title = {A Retrospective Study of One Decade of Artifact Evaluations}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 30th {ACM} Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18}, editor = {Abhik Roychoudhury and Cristian Cadar and Miryung Kim}, pages = {145-156}, year = {2022}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3540250.3549172}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {5ad5c04b173c8c68f651b955545d44a7d74c0cf497b2c7ec988768d7459e26b4}, funding = {}, }
  6. Dirk Beyer, Martin Spiessl, and Sven Umbricht. Cooperation between Automatic and Interactive Software Verifiers. In Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM 2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30, LNCS 13550, pages 111–128, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_7 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SEFM22b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl and Sven Umbricht}, title = {Cooperation between Automatic and Interactive Software Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM~2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30}, editor = {Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai}, pages = {111–128}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13550}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_7}, sha256 = {a310ff0ac97f37ee817c6f05a4cc9a635cbacd09ad301b483095f133040e8e48}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-SEFM.Cooperation_between_Automatic_and_Interactive_Software_Verifiers.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer, Marian Lingsch Rosenfeld, and Martin Spiessl. A Unifying Approach for Control-Flow-Based Loop Abstraction. In Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM 2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30, LNCS 13550, pages 3-19, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_1 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SEFM22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marian Lingsch Rosenfeld and Martin Spiessl}, title = {A Unifying Approach for Control-Flow-Based Loop Abstraction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, (SEFM~2022, Berlin, Germany, September 26-30}, editor = {Bernd-Holger Schlingloff and Ming Chai}, pages = {3-19}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13550}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-17108-6_1}, sha256 = {047a8a9062e143741623320cf80ec963ce5f7200a5a75d263fa6615c12f2199e}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-SEFM.A_Unifying_Approach_for_Control-Flow-Based_Loop_Abstraction.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  8. Dirk Beyer, Jan Haltermann, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Decomposing Software Verification into Off-the-Shelf Components: An Application to CEGAR. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 8-20 (Virtual), May 22-27 (In-Person)), pages 536-548, 2022. ACM. doi:10.1145/3510003.3510064 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Interfaces for Component-Based Design Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    Techniques for software verification are typically realized as cohesive units of software with tightly coupled components. This makes it difficult to re-use components, and the potential for workload distribution is limited. Innovations in software verification might find their way into practice faster if provided in smaller, more specialized components. In this paper, we propose to strictly decompose software verification: the verification task is split into independent subtasks, implemented by only loosely coupled components communicating via clearly defined interfaces. We apply this decomposition concept to one of the most frequently employed techniques in software verification: counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). CEGAR is a technique to iteratively compute an abstract model of the system. We develop a decomposition of CEGAR into independent components with clearly defined interfaces that are based on existing, standardized exchange formats. Its realization component-based CEGAR (C-CEGAR) concerns the three core tasks of CEGAR: abstract-model exploration, feasibility check, and precision refinement. We experimentally show that - despite the necessity of exchanging complex data via interfaces - the efficiency thereby only reduces by a small constant factor while the precision in solving verification tasks even increases. We furthermore illustrate the advantages of C-CEGAR by experimenting with different implementations of components, thereby further increasing the overall effectiveness and testing that substitution of components works well.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ICSE22, author = {Dirk Beyer and Jan Haltermann and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Decomposing Software Verification into Off-the-Shelf Components: An Application to {CEGAR}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 8-20 (Virtual), May 22-27 (In-Person))}, pages = {536-548}, year = {2022}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3510003.3510064}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/component-based-cegar/}, abstract = {Techniques for software verification are typically realized as cohesive units of software with tightly coupled components. This makes it difficult to re-use components, and the potential for workload distribution is limited. Innovations in software verification might find their way into practice faster if provided in smaller, more specialized components. In this paper, we propose to strictly decompose software verification: the verification task is split into independent subtasks, implemented by only loosely coupled components communicating via clearly defined interfaces. We apply this decomposition concept to one of the most frequently employed techniques in software verification: counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). CEGAR is a technique to iteratively compute an abstract model of the system. We develop a decomposition of CEGAR into independent components with clearly defined interfaces that are based on existing, standardized exchange formats. Its realization component-based CEGAR (C-CEGAR) concerns the three core tasks of CEGAR: abstract-model exploration, feasibility check, and precision refinement. We experimentally show that --- despite the necessity of exchanging complex data via interfaces --- the efficiency thereby only reduces by a small constant factor while the precision in solving verification tasks even increases. We furthermore illustrate the advantages of C-CEGAR by experimenting with different implementations of components, thereby further increasing the overall effectiveness and testing that substitution of components works well.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Interfaces for Component-Based Design}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-ICSE.Decomposing_Software_Verification_into_Off-the-Shelf-Components.pdf}, _sha256 = {be1c5d744475af00f5a0cddd51d92353296d1d8e5ba60f5439ba5b98217e0e03}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.5301636}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  9. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. The Static Analyzer Frama-C in SV-COMP (Competition Contribution). In Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13244, pages 429-434, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_26 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS22c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {The Static Analyzer {Frama-C} in {SV-COMP} (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu}, pages = {429--434}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13244}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_26}, sha256 = {77ed425c2b30a4f9424ed46c9cb5a846f5c21677ececdbf098e30f37aca67a3d}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TACAS.The_Static_Analyzer_Frama-C_in_SV-COMP_Competition_Contribution.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  10. Dirk Beyer. Progress on Software Verification: SV-COMP 2022. In D. Fisman and G. Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13244, pages 375-402, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS22b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Progress on Software Verification: {SV-COMP 2022}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {D.~Fisman and G.~Rosu}, pages = {375-402}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13244}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_20}, sha256 = {88d2b7552d79ad77c4e000f83a18f9d71038f7ddfca6c0f0700644405a115943}, url = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-TACAS.Progress_on_Software_Verification_SV-COMP_2022.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav. CoVeriTeam: On-Demand Composition of Cooperative Verification Systems. In D. Fisman and G. Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7, LNCS 13243, pages 561-579, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_31 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav}, title = {{CoVeriTeam}: {O}n-Demand Composition of Cooperative Verification Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7}, editor = {D.~Fisman and G.~Rosu}, pages = {561-579}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13243}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_31}, sha256 = {e38311ae071351301b08d16849ee309a86efdc07fc45e18e466b4735ef21f241}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coveriteam/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-04-06_TACAS22_CoVeriTeam_Sudeep.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer. Advances in Automatic Software Testing: Test-Comp 2022. In E. B. Johnsen and M. Wimmer, editors, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7), LNCS 13241, pages 321-335, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_18 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE22b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Advances in Automatic Software Testing: {Test-Comp 2022}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7)}, editor = {E.~B.~Johnsen and M.~Wimmer}, pages = {321-335}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13241}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_18}, sha256 = {3f921c8f232a5c970f678889de8c402313049522a5dfa69ca68cd01d9dd9fce3}, url = {https://test-comp.sosy-lab.org/2022/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-FASE.Advances_in_Automatic_Software_Testing_Test-Comp_2022.pdf}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  13. Dirk Beyer, Sudeep Kanav, and Cedric Richter. Construction of Verifier Combinations Based on Off-the-Shelf Verifiers. In E. B. Johnsen and M. Wimmer, editors, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7), LNCS 13241, pages 49-70, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav and Cedric Richter}, title = {Construction of Verifier Combinations Based on Off-the-Shelf Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7)}, editor = {E.~B.~Johnsen and M.~Wimmer}, pages = {49-70}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13241}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3}, sha256 = {fa50620b5b60e7c8761ea251b3ab30ef1e18320d49d76f417eac6dcd5b4a0bbc}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coveriteam-combinations/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-04-04_FASE22-CoVeriTeam-Combinations_Cedric.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  14. Dongge Liu, Van-Thuan Pham, Gidon Ernst, Toby Murray, and Benjamin Rubinstein. State selection algorithms and their impact on the performance of stateful network protocol fuzzing. In Proc. of Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2022. IEEE. Link to this entry To appear.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:saner2022, author = {Dongge Liu and Van-Thuan Pham and Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray and Benjamin Rubinstein}, title = {State selection algorithms and their impact on the performance of stateful network protocol fuzzing}, booktitle = {Proc. of Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)}, year = {2022}, publisher = {IEEE}, note = {To appear.}, }
  15. Gidon Ernst. Loop Verification with Invariants and Summaries. In Proc. of Verification, Model-Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI), LNCS, 2022. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:vmcai2022, author = {Gidon Ernst}, title = {Loop Verification with Invariants and Summaries}, booktitle = {Proc. of Verification, Model-Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI)}, volume = {13182}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, }
  16. Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger. The Static Analyzer Infer in SV-COMP (Competition Contribution). In Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7), Part 2, LNCS 13244, pages 451-456, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_30 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP) Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Abstract
    We present Infer-SV, a wrapper that adapts Infer for SV-COMP. Infer is a static-analysis tool for C and other languages, developed by Facebook and used by multiple large companies. It is strongly aimed at industry and the internal use at Facebook. Despite its popularity, there are no reported numbers on its precision and efficiency. With Infer-SV, we take a first step towards an objective comparison of Infer with other SV-COMP participants from academia and industry.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{INFER-SVCOMP22, author = {Matthias Kettl and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {The Static Analyzer Infer in {SV-COMP} (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2022, Munich, Germany, April 2-7), Part 2}, editor = {Dana Fisman and Grigore Rosu}, pages = {451--456}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13244}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_30}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-SVCOMP.The_Static_Analyzer_Infer_in_SV-COMP.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-04-07_TACAS_Infer.pdf}, abstract = {We present Infer-SV, a wrapper that adapts Infer for SV-COMP. Infer is a static-analysis tool for C and other languages, developed by Facebook and used by multiple large companies. It is strongly aimed at industry and the internal use at Facebook. Despite its popularity, there are no reported numbers on its precision and efficiency. With Infer-SV, we take a first step towards an objective comparison of Infer with other SV-COMP participants from academia and industry.}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP)}, }
  17. Martin Wirsing, Rocco De Nicola, and Stefan Jähnichen. Rigorous Engineering of Collective Adaptive Systems Introduction to the 4th Track Edition. In Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen, editors, Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Adaptation and Learning - 11th International Symposium, ISoLA 2022, Rhodes, Greece, October 22-30, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, LNCS 13703, pages 3-12, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19759-8_1 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/isola/WirsingNJ22, author = {Martin Wirsing and Rocco De Nicola and Stefan J{\"{a}}hnichen}, title = {Rigorous Engineering of Collective Adaptive Systems Introduction to the 4th Track Edition}, booktitle = {Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Adaptation and Learning - 11th International Symposium, ISoLA 2022, Rhodes, Greece, October 22-30, 2022, Proceedings, Part {III}}, editor = {Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen}, pages = {3--12}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13703}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-19759-8_1}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-ISOLA.Rigorous_Engineering_of_Collective_Adaptive_Systems.pdf}, }
  18. Rolf Hennicker, Alexander Knapp, and Martin Wirsing. Epistemic Ensembles. In Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen, editors, Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Adaptation and Learning - 11th International Symposium, ISoLA 2022, Rhodes, Greece, October 22-30, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, LNCS 13703, pages 110-126, 2022. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19759-8_8 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/isola/HennickerKW22, author = {Rolf Hennicker and Alexander Knapp and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Epistemic Ensembles}, booktitle = {Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Adaptation and Learning - 11th International Symposium, ISoLA 2022, Rhodes, Greece, October 22-30, 2022, Proceedings, Part {III}}, editor = {Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen}, pages = {110--126}, year = {2022}, series = {LNCS~13703}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-19759-8_8}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-ISOLA.Epistemic_Ensembles.pdf}, }
  19. Xiyue Sun, Fabian Pieroth, Kyrill Schmid, Martin Wirsing, and Lenz Belzner. On Learning Stable Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with Paid Incentives. In 42nd IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS Workshops, Bologna, Italy, July 10, 2022, pages 113-118, 2022. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICDCSW56584.2022.00031 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/icdcs/SunPSWB22, author = {Xiyue Sun and Fabian Pieroth and Kyrill Schmid and Martin Wirsing and Lenz Belzner}, title = {On Learning Stable Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with Paid Incentives}, booktitle = {42nd {IEEE} International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, {ICDCS} Workshops, Bologna, Italy, July 10, 2022}, pages = {113--118}, year = {2022}, publisher = {{IEEE}}, doi = {10.1109/ICDCSW56584.2022.00031}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-ICDCSW.On_Learning_Stable_Cooperation_in_the_Iterated_Prisoners_Dilemma_with_Paid_Incentives.pdf}, }
  20. Dirk Beyer, Nian-Ze Lee, and Philipp Wendler. Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification. Technical report 2208.05046, arXiv/CoRR, August 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Interpolation-based model checking (McMillan, 2003) is a formal-verification algorithm, which was originally devised to verify safety properties of finite-state transition systems. The algorithm is state-of-the-art in hardware model checking. It derives interpolants from unsatisfiable BMC queries, and collects them to construct an overapproximation of the set of reachable states. Unlike other formal-verification algorithms, such as k-induction or PDR, which have been extended to handle infinite-state systems and investigated for program analysis, McMillan's interpolation-based model checking algorithm from 2003 has not been used to verify programs so far. This paper closes this significant, 19 years old gap in knowledge by adopting the algorithm to software verification. We implemented it in the verification framework CPAchecker, and evaluated the implementation against other state-of-the-art software-verification techniques over the largest publicly available benchmark suite of C safety-verification tasks. The evaluation demonstrates that interpolation-based model checking is competitive among other algorithms in terms of both the number of solved verification tasks and the run-time efficiency. Our results might have important implications for software verification, because researchers and developers now have a richer set of approaches to choose from.
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport22a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Nian-Ze Lee and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Interpolation and SAT-Based Model Checking Revisited: Adoption to Software Verification}, number = {2208.05046}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-08-11_iPRA22_Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited.pdf}, abstract = {Interpolation-based model checking <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1">(McMillan, 2003)</a> is a formal-verification algorithm, which was originally devised to verify safety properties of finite-state transition systems. The algorithm is state-of-the-art in hardware model checking. It derives interpolants from unsatisfiable BMC queries, and collects them to construct an overapproximation of the set of reachable states. Unlike other formal-verification algorithms, such as k-induction or PDR, which have been extended to handle infinite-state systems and investigated for program analysis, McMillan's <em>interpolation-based model checking</em> algorithm from 2003 has not been used to verify programs so far. This paper closes this significant, 19 years old gap in knowledge by adopting the algorithm to software verification. We implemented it in the verification framework CPAchecker, and evaluated the implementation against other state-of-the-art software-verification techniques over the largest publicly available benchmark suite of C safety-verification tasks. The evaluation demonstrates that interpolation-based model checking is competitive among other algorithms in terms of both the number of solved verification tasks and the run-time efficiency. Our results might have important implications for software verification, because researchers and developers now have a richer set of approaches to choose from.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-imc/Interpolation_and_SAT-Based_Model_Checking_Revisited.pdf}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {August}, }
  21. Matthias Dangl. Witness-Based Validation of Verification Results with Applications to Software-Model Checking. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.31508 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DanglWitnesses, author = {Matthias Dangl}, title = {Witness-Based Validation of Verification Results with Applications to Software-Model Checking}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.31508}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31508/3/Dangl_Matthias.pdf}, presentation = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Now at ARS, Munich, Germany}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-315089}, }
    Additional Infos
    Now at ARS, Munich, Germany
  22. Thomas Lemberger. Towards Cooperative Software Verification with Test Generation and Formal Verification. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.32852 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LembergerCoop, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Towards Cooperative Software Verification with Test Generation and Formal Verification}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.32852}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32852/1/Lemberger_Thomas.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-12-12_PhD_TowardsCooperativeSoftwareVerification_Thomas.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, annote = {Nominated for the <a href="https://se2024.se.jku.at/ernst-denert-se-preis/">Ernst Denert SE-Preis 2024</a>}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-328522}, }
    Additional Infos
    Nominated for the Ernst Denert SE-Preis 2024
  23. Karlheinz Friedberger. Efficient Software Model Checking with Block-Abstraction Memoization. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. doi:10.5282/edoc.29976 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{FriedbergerBAM, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Efficient Software Model Checking with Block-Abstraction Memoization}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.29976}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29976/1/Friedberger_Karlheinz.pdf}, presentation = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Now at MSG Systems, Munich, Germany}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-296471}, }
    Additional Infos
    Now at MSG Systems, Munich, Germany
  24. Daniel Baier. Implementation of Value Analysis over Symbolic Memory Graphs in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Symbolic Memory Graphs PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BaierSymbolicMemoryGraphs, author = {Daniel Baier}, title = {Implementation of Value Analysis over Symbolic Memory Graphs in CPAchecker}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Baier.Implementation_of_Value_Analysis_over_Symbolic_Memory_Graphs_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-09-28_MA_Implementation_of_Value_Analysis_over_Symbolic_Memory_Graphs_in_CPAchecker_Baier.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Symbolic Memory Graphs}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  25. Martin Pletl. A New Spin on Verification with Symbolic Execution: Symbolic Execution as Formula-Based Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{PletlSymbolicExecution, author = {Martin Pletl}, title = {A New Spin on Verification with Symbolic Execution: Symbolic Execution as Formula-Based Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker}, year = {2022}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  26. Maximilian Hailer. New Approaches and Visualization for Verification Coverage. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{HailerVerificationCoverage, author = {Maximilian Hailer}, title = {New Approaches and Visualization for Verification Coverage}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Hailer.New_Approaches_and_Visualization_for_Verification_Coverage.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-06-16_MA_New_Approaches_and_Visualization_for_Verification_Coverage_Hailer.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Matthias Kettl. Adjustable Block Analysis: Actor-Based Creation of Block Summaries for Scaling Formal Verification. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{Kettl, author = {Matthias Kettl}, title = {Adjustable Block Analysis: Actor-Based Creation of Block Summaries for Scaling Formal Verification}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2022.Kettl.Adjustable_Block_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-02-24_MA_Adjustable_Block_Analysis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  28. Philipp Waldinger. Concurrent Software Verification through Block-based Task Partitioning and Continuous Summary Refinement. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{WaldingerTaskPartitioning, author = {Philipp Waldinger}, title = {Concurrent Software Verification through Block-based Task Partitioning and Continuous Summary Refinement}, year = {2022}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  29. Klara Cimbalnik. Program Transformation in CPAchecker: Design and Implementation of a Source-Respecting Translation from Control-Flow Automata to C Code. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{CimbalnikCfaExport, author = {Klara Cimbalnik}, title = {Program Transformation in \textsc{CPAchecker}: Design and Implementation of a Source-Respecting Translation from Control-Flow Automata to C Code}, year = {2022}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  30. Tobias Kleinert. Developing a Verifier Based on Parallel Portfolio with CoVeriTeam. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KleinertParPortfolioCoVeriTeam, author = {Tobias Kleinert}, title = {Developing a Verifier Based on Parallel Portfolio with \textsc{CoVeriTeam}}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2022.Kleinert.Parallel_Portfolio_CoVeriTeam.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-03-16_BA_Parallel_Portfolio_CoVeriTeam.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  31. Robin Gloster. Cgroups v2 Support for BenchExec. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2022. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GlosterCgroupsV2, author = {Robin Gloster}, title = {Cgroups v2 Support for \textsc{BenchExec}}, year = {2022}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2022.Gloster.Cgroups_v2_Support_for_BenchExec.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2022-03-09_BA_Cgroups_v2_Support_for_BenchExec_Gloster.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2021
  1. Dirk Beyer, Marieke Huisman, Fabrice Kordon, and Bernhard Steffen. TOOLympics II: Competitions on Formal Methods (Intro). International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 23(6):879-881, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-021-00631-1 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Intro-TOOLympics2-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman and Fabrice Kordon and Bernhard Steffen}, title = {{TOOLympics II}: {Competitions} on Formal Methods (Intro)}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {23}, number = {6}, pages = {879-881}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-021-00631-1}, sha256 = {efda377ea8f220771b05df7a9f9273bbcf6a692fa39f2a2304e7524408b8cdee}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer. First International Competition on Software Testing. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 23(6):833-846, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-021-00613-3 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{TestComp19-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {First International Competition on Software Testing}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {23}, number = {6}, pages = {833-846}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-021-00613-3}, sha256 = {cd82a853fbbf65de7f95a9e7de4f36118bb35fb516db87421a0aa38ccc863031}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2021-STTT.First_International_Competition_on_Software_Testing.pdf}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman. TOOLympics I: Competition on Software Testing (Intro). International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 23(6):829-832, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-021-00611-5 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Intro-TOOLympics1-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman}, title = {{TOOLympics I}: {Competition} on Software Testing (Intro)}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {23}, number = {6}, pages = {829-832}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-021-00611-5}, sha256 = {ec828ad46ee494c8fb08b462df617320f2ebce70c6bee9330c2f0eb65ef5d757}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing with CoVeriTest. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 23(3):313-333, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00587-8 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract
    Testing is a widely applied technique to evaluate software quality, and coverage criteria are often used to assess the adequacy of a generated test suite. However, manually constructing an adequate test suite is typically too expensive, and numerous techniques for automatic test-suite generation were proposed. All of them come with different strengths. To build stronger test-generation tools, different techniques should be combined. In this paper, we study cooperative combinations of verification approaches for test generation, which exchange high-level information. We present CoVeriTest, a hybrid technique for test-suite generation. CoVeriTest iteratively applies different conditional model checkers and allows users to adjust the level of cooperation and to configure individual time limits for each conditional model checker. In our experiments, we systematically study different CoVeriTest cooperation setups, which either use combinations of explicit-state model checking and predicate abstraction, or bounded model checking and symbolic execution. A comparison with state-of-the-art test-generation tools reveals that CoVeriTest achieves higher coverage for many programs (about 15
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{CoVeriTest-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing with {CoVeriTest}}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {23}, number = {3}, pages = {313-333}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-020-00587-8}, sha256 = {28a5bf6103296455728076e8c12902a53b3d377a296ea2ba18ac111c93330dbd}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {Testing is a widely applied technique to evaluate software quality, and coverage criteria are often used to assess the adequacy of a generated test suite. However, manually constructing an adequate test suite is typically too expensive, and numerous techniques for automatic test-suite generation were proposed. All of them come with different strengths. To build stronger test-generation tools, different techniques should be combined. In this paper, we study cooperative combinations of verification approaches for test generation, which exchange high-level information. We present CoVeriTest, a hybrid technique for test-suite generation. CoVeriTest iteratively applies different conditional model checkers and allows users to adjust the level of cooperation and to configure individual time limits for each conditional model checker. In our experiments, we systematically study different CoVeriTest cooperation setups, which either use combinations of explicit-state model checking and predicate abstraction, or bounded model checking and symbolic execution. A comparison with state-of-the-art test-generation tools reveals that CoVeriTest achieves higher coverage for many programs (about 15%).}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
  5. Gidon Ernst, Sean Sedwards, Zhenya Zhang, and Ichiro Hasuo. Falsification of Hybrid Systems using Adaptive Probabilistic Search. Transact. on Modeling and Comp. Simulations (TOMACS), 31(3):1-22, 2021. ACM. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:tomacs2021, author = {Gidon Ernst and Sean Sedwards and Zhenya Zhang and Ichiro Hasuo}, title = {Falsification of Hybrid Systems using Adaptive Probabilistic Search}, journal = {Transact. on Modeling and Comp. Simulations (TOMACS)}, volume = {31}, number = {3}, pages = {1--22}, year = {2021}, publisher = {ACM}, }
  6. Martin Wirsing and Dieter Frey. Agile governance for innovating higher education teaching and learning. Rivista di Digital Politics(3/2021):543-558, 2021. Società editrice il Mulino. doi:10.53227/103804 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{WirsingF21, author = {Martin Wirsing and Dieter Frey}, title = {Agile governance for innovating higher education teaching and learning}, journal = {Rivista di Digital Politics}, number = {3/2021}, pages = {543--558}, year = {2021}, publisher = {Società editrice il Mulino}, doi = {10.53227/103804}, pdf = {https://sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2022-Rivista.Agile_governance_for_innovating_higher_education_teaching_and_learning.pdf}, issn = {2785-0072}, urlpub = {https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.53227/103804}, }
  7. Lenz Belzner and Martin Wirsing. Synthesizing safe policies under probabilistic constraints with reinforcement learning and Bayesian model checking. Sci. Comput. Program., 206:102620, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2021.102620 Link to this entry Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{DBLP:journals/scp/BelznerW21, author = {Lenz Belzner and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Synthesizing safe policies under probabilistic constraints with reinforcement learning and Bayesian model checking}, journal = {Sci. Comput. Program.}, volume = {206}, pages = {102620}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1016/j.scico.2021.102620}, }
  8. Simon Bliudze, Panagiotis Katsaros, Saddek Bensalem, and Martin Wirsing. On methods and tools for rigorous system design. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., 23(5):679-684, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10009-021-00632-0 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{DBLP:journals/sttt/BliudzeKBW21, author = {Simon Bliudze and Panagiotis Katsaros and Saddek Bensalem and Martin Wirsing}, title = {On methods and tools for rigorous system design}, journal = {Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf.}, volume = {23}, number = {5}, pages = {679--684}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-021-00632-0}, }
  9. Dirk Beyer, Karlheinz Friedberger, and Stephan Holzner. PJBDD: A BDD Library for Java and Multi-Threading. In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA21 2021, Gold Coast (Online), Australia, October 18-22), 2021. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88885-5_10 Link to this entry Keyword(s): PJBDD, BDD Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF
    Artifact(s)
    Abstract
    PJBDD is a flexible and modular Java library for binary decision diagrams (BDD), which are a well-known data structure for performing efficient operations on compressed sets and relations. BDDs have practical applications in composing and analyzing boolean functions, e.g., for computer-aided verification. Despite its importance, there are only a few BDD libraries available. PJBDD is based on a slim object-oriented design, supports multi-threaded execution of the BDD operations (internal) as well as thread-safe access to the operations from applications (external). It provides automatic reference counting and garbage collection. The modular design of the library allows us to provide a uniform API for binary decision diagrams, zero-suppressed decision diagrams, and also chained decision diagrams. This paper includes a compact evaluation of PJBDD, to demonstrate that concurrent operations on large BDDs scale well and parallelize nicely on multi-core CPUs.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ATVA21, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger and Stephan Holzner}, title = {{PJBDD}: {A} {BDD} Library for {Java} and Multi-Threading}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA21~2021, Gold Coast (Online), Australia, October 18-22)}, year = {2021}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-88885-5_10}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2021-ATVA.PJBDD_A_BDD_Library_for_Java_and_Multi_Threading.pdf}, abstract = {PJBDD is a flexible and modular Java library for binary decision diagrams (BDD), which are a well-known data structure for performing efficient operations on compressed sets and relations. BDDs have practical applications in composing and analyzing boolean functions, e.g., for computer-aided verification. Despite its importance, there are only a few BDD libraries available. PJBDD is based on a slim object-oriented design, supports multi-threaded execution of the BDD operations (internal) as well as thread-safe access to the operations from applications (external). It provides automatic reference counting and garbage collection. The modular design of the library allows us to provide a uniform API for binary decision diagrams, zero-suppressed decision diagrams, and also chained decision diagrams. This paper includes a compact evaluation of PJBDD, to demonstrate that concurrent operations on large BDDs scale well and parallelize nicely on multi-core CPUs.}, keyword = {PJBDD,BDD}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.5070156}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  10. Daniel Baier, Dirk Beyer, and Karlheinz Friedberger. JavaSMT 3: Interacting with SMT Solvers in Java. In A. Silva and K. R. M. Leino, editors, Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2021, Los Angeles, California, USA, July 18-24), LNCS 12760, pages 1-13, 2021. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CAV21, author = {Daniel Baier and Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {JavaSMT 3: Interacting with SMT Solvers in Java}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV~2021, Los Angeles, California, USA, July 18-24)}, editor = {A.~Silva and K.~R.~M.~Leino}, pages = {1-13}, year = {2021}, series = {LNCS~12760}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9}, sha256 = {6c0ff13c5dd8596e19be4176eefaafe5853d60a082b78ebd3f5e64381fdcb100}, url = {https://github.com/sosy-lab/java-smt}, abstract = {}, keyword = {JavaSMT}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2021-CAV.JavaSMT_3_Interacting_with_SMT_Solvers_in_Java.pdf}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification: 10th Comparative Evaluation (SV-COMP 2021). In J. F. Groote and K. G. Larsen, editors, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1), part 2, LNCS 12652, pages 401-422, 2021. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_24 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS21, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification: 10th Comparative Evaluation ({SV-COMP 2021})}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1), part 2}, editor = {J.~F.~Groote and K.~G.~Larsen}, pages = {401-422}, year = {2021}, series = {LNCS~12652}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-72013-1_24}, sha256 = {d78bb586715b0650702665510258d8e53a7bd16ae2a3cc4568b5986527b29051}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2021/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer. Status Report on Software Testing: Test-Comp 2021. In E. Guerra and M. Stoelinga, editors, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1), LNCS 12649, pages 341-357, 2021. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71500-7_17 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    This report describes Test-Comp 2021, the 3rd edition of the Competition on Software Testing. The competition is a series of annual comparative evaluations of fully automatic software test generators for C programs. The competition has a strong focus on reproducibility of its results and its main goal is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in the area of automatic test-generation. The competition was based on 3 173 test-generation tasks for C programs. Each test-generation task consisted of a program and a test specification (error coverage, branch coverage). Test-Comp 2021 had 11 participating test generators from 6 countries.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE21, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Status Report on Software Testing: {Test-Comp 2021}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2021, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, March 27 - April 1)}, editor = {E.~Guerra and M.~Stoelinga}, pages = {341-357}, year = {2021}, series = {LNCS~12649}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-030-71500-7}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-71500-7_17}, sha256 = {113b44c5be9f6d773ebd1a5cad91e8dc66f06d7af0b8c648c9dcea8d6bbc7e3d}, url = {https://test-comp.sosy-lab.org/2021/}, abstract = {This report describes Test-Comp 2021, the 3rd edition of the Competition on Software Testing. The competition is a series of annual comparative evaluations of fully automatic software test generators for C programs. The competition has a strong focus on reproducibility of its results and its main goal is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in the area of automatic test-generation. The competition was based on 3 173 test-generation tasks for C programs. Each test-generation task consisted of a program and a test specification (error coverage, branch coverage). Test-Comp 2021 had 11 participating test generators from 6 countries.}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  13. Gidon Ernst, Johannes Blau, and Toby Murray. Deductive Verification via the Debug Adapter Protocol. In Proc. of Formal Integrated Development Environment (F-IDE), 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:fide2021, author = {Gidon Ernst and Johannes Blau and Toby Murray}, title = {Deductive Verification via the Debug Adapter Protocol}, booktitle = {Proc. of Formal Integrated Development Environment (F-IDE)}, year = {2021}, }
  14. Grigory Fedyukovich and Gidon Ernst. Bridging Arrays and ADTs in Recursive Proofs. In Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), LNCS, pages 24-42, 2021. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:tacas2021, author = {Grigory Fedyukovich and Gidon Ernst}, title = {Bridging Arrays and {ADTs} in Recursive Proofs}, booktitle = {Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS)}, volume = {12652}, pages = {24--42}, year = {2021}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, }
  15. Gidon Ernst and others. ARCH-COMP 2021 category report: Falsification with Validation of Results. In Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH), EPiC, pages 133-152, 2021. EasyChair. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:arch2021, author = {Gidon Ernst and others}, title = {{ARCH-COMP} 2021 category report: Falsification with Validation of Results}, booktitle = {Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH)}, volume = {80}, pages = {133--152}, year = {2021}, series = {EPiC}, publisher = {EasyChair}, }
  16. Dirk Beyer, Lars Grunske, Thomas Lemberger, and Minxing Tang. Towards a Benchmark Set for Program Repair Based on Partial Fixes. Technical report 2107.08038, arXiv/CoRR, July 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2107.08038 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport21a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Lars Grunske and Thomas Lemberger and Minxing Tang}, title = {Towards a Benchmark Set for Program Repair Based on Partial Fixes}, number = {2107.08038}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2107.08038}, keyword = {}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {July}, }
  17. Ludwig Glückstadt. Genetic Programming in Software Verification. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Genetic Programming
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GlueckstadtGP, author = {Ludwig Glückstadt}, title = {Genetic Programming in Software Verification}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker, Genetic Programming}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  18. Simon Antonischki. A CPA for String Analysis for Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AntonischkiStringCPA, author = {Simon Antonischki}, title = {A CPA for String Analysis for Java Programs in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Software Model Checking, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  19. Penelope Powers. Mutation based Automatic Program Repair in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Automatic Program Repair, CPAchecker
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{PowersAPR, author = {Penelope Powers}, title = {Mutation based Automatic Program Repair in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Automatic Program Repair, CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  20. Korab Zogu. SV-COMP Benchmarks for Weak Memory Models. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarks, Weak Memory Models
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ZoguBenchmarksWeakMemoryModel, author = {Korab Zogu}, title = {SV-COMP Benchmarks for Weak Memory Models}, year = {2021}, keyword = {Benchmarks, Weak Memory Models}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  21. Yun Zhang. Verification Witnesses: from LLVM to C. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): LLVM, Witness-Based Validation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ZhangWitnessesLLVMToC, author = {Yun Zhang}, title = {Verification Witnesses: from LLVM to C}, year = {2021}, keyword = {LLVM, Witness-Based Validation}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  22. Simon Raths. Implementation and Evaluation of TBDDs in PJBDD. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): BDD
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RathsTBDD, author = {Simon Raths}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of TBDDs in PJBDD}, year = {2021}, keyword = {BDD}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  23. Sebastian Tschoepel. Implementation and Evaluation of a Simple Taint Analysis for CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Taint
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{TschoepelTaint, author = {Sebastian Tschoepel}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of a Simple Taint Analysis for \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2021}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Taint}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  24. Dennis Simon. Shareable Benchmarking Reports with Enhanced Filters and Dynamic Statistics for BenchExec. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SimonBA, author = {Dennis Simon}, title = {Shareable Benchmarking Reports with Enhanced Filters and Dynamic Statistics for \textsc{BenchExec}}, year = {2021}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2021.Simon.Shareable_Benchmarking_Reports_with_Enhanced_Filters_and_Dynamic_Statistics_for_BenchExec.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-04-28_BA_ShareableBenchmarkingReportsWithEnhancedFiltersAndDynamicStatisticsForBenchExec_Simon.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  25. Matthias Kettl. A Collection of Real-World Benchmark Tasks for Repair of Partial Program Fixes. Research Internship, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KettlPartialProgramFixesBenchmarkSet, author = {Matthias Kettl}, title = {A Collection of Real-World Benchmark Tasks for Repair of Partial Program Fixes}, year = {2021}, keyword = {}, howpublished = {Research Internship, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  26. Lucas Hoffmann. Ulang-An experimental functional language and proof assistant. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{HoffmannUlang, author = {Lucas Hoffmann}, title = {Ulang---An experimental functional language and proof assistant}, year = {2021}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Johannes Blau. Visual Verification Debugging in VS Code. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BlauVisualDebugging, author = {Johannes Blau}, title = {Visual Verification Debugging in VS Code}, year = {2021}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  28. Christoph Girstenbrei. Combining Fuzzing and Symbolic Execution in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GirstenbreiFuzzing, author = {Christoph Girstenbrei}, title = {Combining Fuzzing and Symbolic Execution in CPAchecker}, year = {2021}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  29. Maximilian Doods. Python Frontend for a deductive verifier. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DoodsPython, author = {Maximilian Doods}, title = {Python Frontend for a deductive verifier}, year = {2021}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  30. Marius Funk. Boogie front end for Cuvée. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2021. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{FunkBoogie, author = {Marius Funk}, title = {Boogie front end for Cuvée}, year = {2021}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2020
  1. Dirk Beyer and Damien Zufferey, editors. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI). LNCS 11990, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39322-9 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{VMCAI20, title = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI)}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Damien Zufferey}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~11990}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-030-39321-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-39322-9}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://popl20.sigplan.org/home/VMCAI-2020}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39322-9}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman. Tools for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (Intro). International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 22(6):685-687, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00581-0 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Intro-TACAS18-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman}, title = {Tools for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (Intro)}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {22}, number = {6}, pages = {685-687}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-020-00581-0}, sha256 = {467e6c9c70fd0c0728a8abed5d9162a1467a906e79d367a8a44dd102e8dc0de6}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {}, issn = {1433-2787}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman. Selected and Extended Papers from TACAS 2018: Preface. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 64(7):1331-1332, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10817-020-09575-8 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Intro-TACAS18-JAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman}, title = {Selected and Extended Papers from {TACAS} 2018: Preface}, journal = {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, volume = {64}, number = {7}, pages = {1331-1332}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1007/s10817-020-09575-8}, sha256 = {252d10dfb4cd4c93db83e431938420d0927be076e598c176db1ea85514a5ba0a}, url = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {}, }
  4. Gidon Ernst. A Complete Approach to Loop Verification with Invariants and Summaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05812, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:loops2020, author = {Gidon Ernst}, title = {A Complete Approach to Loop Verification with Invariants and Summaries}, journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05812}, year = {2020}, }
  5. Thomas Lemberger. Plain random test generation with PRTest. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00568-x Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Abstract
    Automatic test-suite generation tools are often complex and their behavior is not predictable. To provide a minimum baseline that test-suite generators should be able to surpass, we present PRTest, a random black-box test-suite generator for C programs: To create a test, PRTest natively executes the program under test and creates a new, random test value whenever an input value is required. After execution, PRTest checks whether any new program branches were covered and, if this is the case, the created test is added to the test suite. This way, tests are rapidly created either until a crash is found, or until the user aborts the creation. While this naive mechanism is not competitive with more sophisticated, state-of-the-art test-suite generation tools, it is able to provide a good baseline for Test-Comp and a fast alternative for automatic test-suite generation for programs with simple control flow. PRTest is publicly available and open source.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{PRTEST19, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Plain random test generation with {PRTest}}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, year = {2020}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-020-00568-x}, sha256 = {2e5ae7091b6adb758c123dfe62d3fab57203f930883539beb20f6e91391ebc77}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2020-STTT.Plain_random_test_generation_with_PRTest.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-04-06_TestComp19_PRTest_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {Automatic test-suite generation tools are often complex and their behavior is not predictable. To provide a minimum baseline that test-suite generators should be able to surpass, we present PRTest, a random black-box test-suite generator for C programs: To create a test, PRTest natively executes the program under test and creates a new, random test value whenever an input value is required. After execution, PRTest checks whether any new program branches were covered and, if this is the case, the created test is added to the test suite. This way, tests are rapidly created either until a crash is found, or until the user aborts the creation. While this naive mechanism is not competitive with more sophisticated, state-of-the-art test-suite generation tools, it is able to provide a good baseline for Test-Comp and a fast alternative for automatic test-suite generation for programs with simple control flow. PRTest is publicly available and open source.}, keyword = {Software Testing}, annote = {Publication appeared first online in July 2020.<BR/> PRTest is available at <a href="https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/prtest"> https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/prtest</a>}, }
    Additional Infos
    Publication appeared first online in July 2020.
    PRTest is available at https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/prtest
  6. Rocco De Nicola, Stefan Jähnichen, and Martin Wirsing. Rigorous engineering of collective adaptive systems: special section. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., 22(4):389-397, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10009-020-00565-0 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{DBLP:journals/sttt/NicolaJW20, author = {Rocco De Nicola and Stefan J{\"{a}}hnichen and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Rigorous engineering of collective adaptive systems: special section}, journal = {Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf.}, volume = {22}, number = {4}, pages = {389--397}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-020-00565-0}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Domain-Independent Interprocedural Program Analysis using Block-Abstraction Memoization. In P. Devanbu, M. Cohen, and T. Zimmermann, editors, Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2020, Virtual Event, USA, November 8-13), pages 50-62, 2020. ACM. doi:10.1145/3368089.3409718 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FSE20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Domain-Independent Interprocedural Program Analysis using Block-Abstraction Memoization}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE~2020, Virtual Event, USA, November 8-13)}, editor = {P.~Devanbu and M.~Cohen and T.~Zimmermann}, pages = {50-62}, year = {2020}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3368089.3409718}, url = {https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _sha256 = {36dc2a423425ee8bec03f0f4073e04f9121d299cc475e27190828e8276e00cb8}, artifact = {10.5281/zenodo.4024268}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, fundingid = {378803395}, }
  8. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Violation Witnesses and Result Validation for Multi-Threaded Programs. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 449-470, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_26 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISoLA20c, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Violation Witnesses and Result Validation for Multi-Threaded Programs}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {449-470}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_26}, sha256 = {65fc5325c4e77a80d8e47f9c0e7f0ac02379bfa15dcd9fb54d6587185b8efd77}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/witnesses-concurrency/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-25_ISOLA21_ValidationMultiThreaded_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  9. Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav. An Interface Theory for Program Verification. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 168-186, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_9 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Interfaces for Component-Based Design Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISoLA20b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sudeep Kanav}, title = {An Interface Theory for Program Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {168-186}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_9}, sha256 = {f15159da0e648a25e57c769639c989e68cd3407bfad10db5ee1dc25e1d2fd672}, url = {}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-29_ISOLA21_VerificationInterfaces_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Interfaces for Component-Based Design}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, }
  10. Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim. Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part 1, LNCS 12476, pages 143-167, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_8 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, Cooperative Verification Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISoLA20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2020, Rhodos, Greece, October 26-30), part~1}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {143-167}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12476}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61362-4_8}, sha256 = {86dbfb5ee4875582566bdb5d44750cc935614c11c09627295cc3ff123115a75b}, url = {}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-10-29_ISOLA21_VerificationArtifacts_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,Cooperative Verification}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, fundingid = {418257054}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, and Thomas Lemberger. Difference Verification with Conditions. In F. d. Boer and A. Cerone, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18), LNCS 12310, pages 133-154, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_8 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP, DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Abstract
    Modern software-verification tools need to support development processes that involve frequent changes. Existing approaches for incremental verification hard-code specific verification techniques. Some of the approaches must be tightly intertwined with the development process. To solve this open problem, we present the concept of difference verification with conditions. Difference verification with conditions is independent from any specific verification technique and can be integrated in software projects at any time. It first applies a change analysis that detects which parts of a software were changed between revisions and encodes that information in a condition. Based on this condition, an off-the-shelf verifier is used to verify only those parts of the software that are influenced by the changes. As a proof of concept, we propose a simple, syntax-based change analysis and use difference verification with conditions with three off-the-shelf verifiers. An extensive evaluation shows the competitiveness of difference verification with conditions.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SEFM20b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Difference Verification with Conditions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM~2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18)}, editor = {F.~d.~Boer and A.~Cerone}, pages = {133--154}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12310}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_8}, sha256 = {8e5219da9a998b26f59013c809fbb1db6f92e3f08125fa1bfaacafcfafafef7f}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/difference/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-17_SEFM20_DifferenceVerificationWithConditions_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {Modern software-verification tools need to support development processes that involve frequent changes. Existing approaches for incremental verification hard-code specific verification techniques. Some of the approaches must be tightly intertwined with the development process. To solve this open problem, we present the concept of difference verification with conditions. Difference verification with conditions is independent from any specific verification technique and can be integrated in software projects at any time. It first applies a change analysis that detects which parts of a software were changed between revisions and encodes that information in a condition. Based on this condition, an off-the-shelf verifier is used to verify only those parts of the software that are influenced by the changes. As a proof of concept, we propose a simple, syntax-based change analysis and use difference verification with conditions with three off-the-shelf verifiers. An extensive evaluation shows the competitiveness of difference verification with conditions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP,DFG-CONVEY}, isbnnote = {}, video = {https://youtu.be/dG02602c9oo}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. FRed: Conditional Model Checking via Reducers and Folders. In F. d. Boer and A. Cerone, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18), LNCS 12310, pages 113-132, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_7 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SEFM20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {{{\sc FRed}}: {C}onditional Model Checking via Reducers and Folders}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM~2020, Virtual, Netherlands, September 14-18)}, editor = {F.~d.~Boer and A.~Cerone}, pages = {113--132}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12310}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-58768-0_7}, sha256 = {0ce35cbde24d7a9de0513b89f23a81147bf4f8d5880effd57742c7f195e0eeec}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/fred/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, isbnnote = {}, }
  13. Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl. MetaVal: Witness Validation via Verification. In S. K. Lahiri and C. Wang, editors, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2020, Virtual, USA, July 21-24), part 2, LNCS 12225, pages 165-177, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8_10 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Funding: DFG-CONVEY Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CAV20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Martin Spiessl}, title = {MetaVal: {W}itness Validation via Verification}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2020, Virtual, USA, July 21-24), part 2}, editor = {S.~K.~Lahiri and C.~Wang}, pages = {165-177}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12225}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8_10}, sha256 = {7431085a248c7e2cab70318096622ff19ce1124067158d08866d3f9b250df44e}, url = {https://gitlab.com/sosy-lab/software/metaval}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, funding = {DFG-CONVEY}, isbnnote = {978-3-030-53290-1}, }
  14. Dirk Beyer. Advances in Automatic Software Verification: SV-COMP 2020. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2, LNCS 12079, pages 347-367, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_21 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS20c, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Advances in Automatic Software Verification: {SV-COMP 2020}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2}, pages = {347-367}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12079}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_21}, sha256 = {2a0cc56934c8fb6d100039b527e8c09f421ca351e4c90ec531aa2accb04504c6}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2020/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, artifact1 = {10.5281/zenodo.3633334}, artifact2 = {10.5281/zenodo.3630205}, artifact3 = {10.5281/zenodo.3630188}, artifact4 = {10.5281/zenodo.3574420}, }
  15. Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler. CPU Energy Meter: A Tool for Energy-Aware Algorithms Engineering. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2, LNCS 12079, pages 126-133, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_8 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Abstract
    Verification algorithms are among the most resource-intensive computation tasks. Saving energy is important for our living environment and to save cost in data centers. Yet, researchers compare the efficiency of algorithms still in terms of consumption of CPU time (or even wall time). Perhaps one reason for this is that measuring energy consumption of computational processes is not as convenient as measuring the consumed time and there is no sufficient tool support. To close this gap, we contribute CPU Energy Meter, a small tool that takes care of reading the energy values that Intel CPUs track inside the chip. In order to make energy measurements as easy as possible, we integrated CPU Energy Meter into BenchExec, a benchmarking tool that is already used by many researchers and competitions in the domain of formal methods. As evidence for usefulness, we explored the energy consumption of some state-of-the-art verifiers and report some interesting insights, for example, that energy consumption is not necessarily correlated with CPU time.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS20b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler}, title = {CPU Energy Meter: A Tool for Energy-Aware Algorithms Engineering}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 2}, pages = {126-133}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12079}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_8}, sha256 = {c5c8ad06f4b192e61799469a8fc6ca4661714aa2945e0ce07363a376ff06dcd7}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/energy-measurement/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-03-31_TACAS20_CPU-Energy-Meter_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {Verification algorithms are among the most resource-intensive computation tasks. Saving energy is important for our living environment and to save cost in data centers. Yet, researchers compare the efficiency of algorithms still in terms of consumption of CPU time (or even wall time). Perhaps one reason for this is that measuring energy consumption of computational processes is not as convenient as measuring the consumed time and there is no sufficient tool support. To close this gap, we contribute CPU Energy Meter, a small tool that takes care of reading the energy values that Intel CPUs track inside the chip. In order to make energy measurements as easy as possible, we integrated CPU Energy Meter into BenchExec, a benchmarking tool that is already used by many researchers and competitions in the domain of formal methods. As evidence for usefulness, we explored the energy consumption of some state-of-the-art verifiers and report some interesting insights, for example, that energy consumption is not necessarily correlated with CPU time.}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, video = {https://youtu.be/qzKAoBVTw2c}, }
  16. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Software Verification with PDR: An Implementation of the State of the Art. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 1, LNCS 12078, pages 3-21, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking, CPAchecker Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS20a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Software Verification with {PDR}: An Implementation of the State of the Art}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), part 1}, pages = {3-21}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12078}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1}, sha256 = {fbd54433b42cb4411ddf6d73eb198507a6d35d8b6581b000be30aed84633e204}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pdr-compare/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-03-31_TACAS20_PDR-for-Software_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Software Model Checking,CPAchecker}, video = {https://youtu.be/Wxqd92sdHBE}, }
  17. Dirk Beyer. Second Competition on Software Testing: Test-Comp 2020. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30), LNCS 12076, pages 505-519, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_25 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Artifact(s)
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE20, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Second Competition on Software Testing: {Test-Comp 2020}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30)}, pages = {505-519}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12076}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_25}, sha256 = {296b4caf885ae029e388c2ef8fd032f1ab55c07d5e8ea1064f2e50c08f5d6919}, url = {https://test-comp.sosy-lab.org/2020/}, abstract = {}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, artifact1 = {10.5281/zenodo.3678250}, artifact2 = {10.5281/zenodo.3678264}, artifact3 = {10.5281/zenodo.3678275}, artifact4 = {10.5281/zenodo.3574420}, }
  18. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. Cooperative Test-Case Generation with Verifiers. In M. Felderer, W. Hasselbring, R. Rabiser, and R. Jung, editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering (SE 2020, Innsbruck, Austria, February 24-28), LNI P-300, pages 107-108, 2020. GI. doi:10.18420/SE2020_31 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE20, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Cooperative Test-Case Generation with Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering (SE~2020, Innsbruck, Austria, February 24-28)}, editor = {M.~Felderer and W.~Hasselbring and R.~Rabiser and R.~Jung}, pages = {107--108}, year = {2020}, series = {{LNI}~P-300}, publisher = {{GI}}, doi = {10.18420/SE2020_31}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {}, presentation = {}, abstract = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2019.html#FASE19">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2019.}, isbnnote = {978-3-88579-694-7}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2019.
  19. Dongge Liu, Gidon Ernst, Toby Murray, and Ben Rubinstein. Legion: Best-First Concolic Testing. In Proc. of Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pages 54-65, 2020. IEEE. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:ase2020, author = {Dongge Liu and Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray and Ben Rubinstein}, title = {Legion: Best-First Concolic Testing}, booktitle = {Proc. of Automated Software Engineering (ASE)}, pages = {54--65}, year = {2020}, publisher = {IEEE}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06311}, }
  20. Dongge Liu, Gidon Ernst, Toby Murray, and Benjamin Rubinstein. Legion: Best-First Concolic Testing (Competition Contribution).. In Proc. of Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pages 545-549, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:testcomp2020, author = {Dongge Liu and Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray and Benjamin Rubinstein}, title = {Legion: Best-First Concolic Testing (Competition Contribution).}, booktitle = {Proc. of Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE)}, pages = {545--549}, year = {2020}, }
  21. Gidon Ernst and Lukas Rieger. Information Flow Testing of a PGP Keyserver. In Proc. of the VerifyThis Long-term Challenge 2020, pages 11-13, 2020. KIT Library. Link to this entry Technical Report.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:vtltc2020-iftesting, author = {Gidon Ernst and Lukas Rieger}, title = {{Information Flow Testing of a PGP Keyserver}}, booktitle = {{Proc. of the VerifyThis Long-term Challenge 2020}}, pages = {11--13}, year = {2020}, publisher = {KIT Library}, note = {Technical Report.}, }
  22. Gidon Ernst, Toby Murray, and Mukesh Tiwari. Verifying the Security of a PGP Keyserver. In Proc. of the VerifyThis Long-term Challenge 2020, pages 14-16, 2020. KIT Library. Link to this entry Technical Report.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:vtltc2020-ifverify, author = {Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray and Mukesh Tiwari}, title = {{Verifying the Security of a PGP Keyserver}}, booktitle = {{Proc. of the VerifyThis Long-term Challenge 2020}}, pages = {14--16}, year = {2020}, publisher = {KIT Library}, note = {Technical Report.}, }
  23. Gidon Ernst and others. ARCH-COMP 2020 category report: Falsification. In Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH), EPiC, pages 140-152, 2020. EasyChair. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:arch2020, author = {Gidon Ernst and others}, title = {{ARCH-COMP} 2020 category report: Falsification}, booktitle = {Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH)}, volume = {74}, pages = {140--152}, year = {2020}, series = {EPiC}, publisher = {EasyChair}, }
  24. Martin Wirsing, Rocco De Nicola, and Stefan Jähnichen. Rigorous Engineering of Collective Adaptive Systems Introduction to the 3rd Track Edition. In Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen, editors, Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles - 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October 20-30, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, LNCS 12477, pages 161-170, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_10 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/isola/WirsingNJ20, author = {Martin Wirsing and Rocco De Nicola and Stefan J{\"{a}}hnichen}, title = {Rigorous Engineering of Collective Adaptive Systems Introduction to the 3rd Track Edition}, booktitle = {Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles - 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October 20-30, 2020, Proceedings, Part {II}}, editor = {Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen}, pages = {161--170}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12477}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6\_10}, }
  25. Rolf Hennicker and Martin Wirsing. A Dynamic Logic for Systems with Predicate-Based Communication. In Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen, editors, Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles - 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October 20-30, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, LNCS 12477, pages 224-242, 2020. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_14 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/isola/HennickerW20, author = {Rolf Hennicker and Martin Wirsing}, title = {A Dynamic Logic for Systems with Predicate-Based Communication}, booktitle = {Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles - 9th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October 20-30, 2020, Proceedings, Part {II}}, editor = {Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen}, pages = {224--242}, year = {2020}, series = {LNCS~12477}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6\_14}, }
  26. Moritz Beck. Solver-based Analysis of Memory Safety using Separation Logic. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, JavaSMT, Separation Logic, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BeckSeparationLogic, author = {Moritz Beck}, title = {Solver-based Analysis of Memory Safety using Separation Logic}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2020.Beck.Solver-based_Analysis_of_Memory_Safety_using_Separation_Logic.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-16_MA_SolverBasedAnalysisOfMemorySafetyUsingSeparationLogic_Beck.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,JavaSMT,Separation Logic,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Martin Zehendner. Software Verification with Numerical Domains in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ZehendnerNumericalDomains, author = {Martin Zehendner}, title = {Software Verification with Numerical Domains in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  28. Sven Umbricht. Converting Between ACSL Annotations and Witness Invariants. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, ACSL PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{UmbrichtACSL, author = {Sven Umbricht}, title = {Converting Between ACSL Annotations and Witness Invariants}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Umbricht.Converting.Between.ACSL.Annotations.and.Witness.Invariants.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-02-10_BA_Converting.Between.ACSL.Annotations.and.Witness.Invariants_Umbricht.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, ACSL}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  29. Benedikt Damböck. Implementierung und Evaluation von einfacher Schleifenabstraktion für das CPAchecker-Framework. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Loop Acceleration
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DamboeckLoopAccel, author = {Benedikt Damböck}, title = {Implementierung und Evaluation von einfacher Schleifenabstraktion für das \textsc{CPAchecker}-Framework}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Loop Acceleration}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  30. Sven Massard. Improve Analysis of Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MassardJavaPrograms, author = {Sven Massard}, title = {Improve Analysis of Java Programs in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  31. Frederic Schönberger. Converting Test Goals to Condition Automata. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SchoenbergerTestGoalsToConditions, author = {Frederic Sch{\"o}nberger}, title = {Converting Test Goals to Condition Automata}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Schoenberger.Converting_Test_Goals_to_Condition_Automata.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2021-01-13_BA_Converting_Test_Goals_to_Condition_Automata_Schoenberger.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  32. Jakob Selberg. Automatic Generation of Test Harnesses for Pointer-Based C Programs: Implementation of a Pointer-Tracking Analysis and Harness-Generation Engine in the Formal Verification Framework CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SelbergHarnessesForPointers, author = {Jakob Selberg}, title = {Automatic Generation of Test Harnesses for Pointer-Based C Programs: Implementation of a Pointer-Tracking Analysis and Harness-Generation Engine in the Formal Verification Framework \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  33. Yannick Adams. Domain Types for Predicate Analysis in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AdamsDomainTypesPredicate, author = {Yannick Adams}, title = {Domain Types for Predicate Analysis in \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  34. Vladyslav Kolesnykov. SMT-Based Model Checking of Concurrent Programs. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KolesnykovConcurrencySMT, author = {Vladyslav Kolesnykov}, title = {{SMT}-Based Model Checking of Concurrent Programs}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kolesnykov.SMT-Based_Model_Checking_of_Concurrent_Programs.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  35. Radu-Cristian Rusanu. Interval-Based Optimization for SMT Solvers. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RusanuIntervalSMTSolver, author = {Radu-Cristian Rusanu}, title = {Interval-Based Optimization for SMT Solvers}, year = {2020}, keyword = {JavaSMT}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  36. Amena Abdulla. Reale Anforderungen für die Software-Analyse. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AbdullaSARD, author = {Amena Abdulla}, title = {Reale Anforderungen f{\"u}r die Software-Analyse}, year = {2020}, keyword = {}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  37. Simon Lund. Code Complexity Measures in Software Engineering: A Systematic Comparison and Evaluation on Software-Component Level. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LundComplexityMeasures, author = {Simon Lund}, title = {Code Complexity Measures in Software Engineering: A Systematic Comparison and Evaluation on Software-Component Level}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Lund.Complexity_Measures_in_Software_Engineering.pdf}, keyword = {}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  38. Angelos Kafounis. Fault Localization in Model Checking. Implementation and Evaluation of Fault-Localization Techniques with Distance Metrics. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KafounisFaultLocalizationWithDistanceMetrics, author = {Angelos Kafounis}, title = {Fault Localization in Model Checking. Implementation and Evaluation of Fault-Localization Techniques with Distance Metrics}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kafounis.Fault_Localization_in_Model_Checking_Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Fault-Localization_Techniques_with_Distance_Metrics.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-29_BA_FaultLocalizationWithDistanceMetrics_Kafounis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  39. Schindar Ali. Test-Based Fault Localization in the Context of Formal Verification: Implementation and Evaluation of the Tarantula Algorithm in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AliFaultLocalizationWithTarantula, author = {Schindar Ali}, title = {Test-Based Fault Localization in the Context of Formal Verification: Implementation and Evaluation of the Tarantula Algorithm in CPAchecker}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Ali.Test-Based_Fault_Localization_in_the_Context_of_Formal_Verification.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-09-02_BA_FaultLocalizationWithTestBasedDistanceMetrics_Ali.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  40. Petros Isaakidis. Energy Consumption Prediction of Verification Work. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Benchmarking, Energy Measurement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{IsaakidisEnergy, author = {Petros Isaakidis}, title = {Energy Consumption Prediction of Verification Work}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Benchmarking, Energy Measurement}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  41. Matthias Kettl. Fault Localization for Formal Verification: An Implementation and Evaluation of Algorithms based on Error Invariants and UNSAT-cores. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KettlFaultLocalization, author = {Matthias Kettl}, title = {Fault Localization for Formal Verification: An Implementation and Evaluation of Algorithms based on Error Invariants and UNSAT-cores}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Kettl.Fault_Localization_for_Formal_Verification_An_Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Algorithms_based_on_Error_Invariants_and_UNSAT-cores.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-07-22_BA_FaultLocalizationWithUnsatCores_Kettl.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the LMU research award for excellent students (LMU Forschungspreis f{\"u}r exzellente Studierende) of LMU Munich}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
    Additional Infos
    Won the LMU research award for excellent students (LMU Forschungspreis für exzellente Studierende) of LMU Munich
  42. Sonja Münchow. A Web Frontend For Visualization of Computation Steps and their Results in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MuenchowVisualizeComputationSteps, author = {Sonja M\"unchow}, title = {A Web Frontend For Visualization of Computation Steps and their Results in CPAchecker}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Muenchow.A_Web_Frontend_for_Visualization_of_Computation_Steps_and_their_Results_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-07-15_BA_WebFrontendForVisualizationOfComputationStepsInCpachecker_Muenchow.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  43. Adrian Leimeister. A Language Server and IDE Plugin for CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LeimeisterIdeLsp, author = {Adrian Leimeister}, title = {A Language Server and IDE Plugin for \textsc{CPAchecker}}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Leimeister.A_Language_Server_and_IDE_Plugin_for_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-07-15_BA_IdePluginForCpachecker_Leimeister.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  44. Michael Obermeier. Extending the Framework JavaSMT with the SMT Solver Yices2. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ObermeierYices2, author = {Michael Obermeier}, title = {Extending the Framework {{\sc JavaSMT}} with the {SMT} Solver {{\sc Yices2}}}, year = {2020}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2020.Obermeier.Extending_the_Framework_JavaSMT_with_the_SMT_Solver_Yices2.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2020-05-13_BA_IntegrationYices2InJavaSMT_Obermeier.pdf}, keyword = {JavaSMT}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  45. Alexander Ried. Design and Implementation of a Cluster-Based Approach for Software Verification. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, BAM
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RiedClusterBAM, author = {Alexander Ried}, title = {Design and Implementation of a Cluster-Based Approach for Software Verification}, year = {2020}, keyword = {CPAchecker, BAM}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  46. Tillmann Gaida. SMT-based Checking and Synthesis of Formal Refinements. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GaidaRefinement, author = {Tillmann Gaida}, title = {SMT-based Checking and Synthesis of Formal Refinements}, year = {2020}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  47. Lukas Rieger. Information Flow Testing of a PGP Server. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{RiegerPGP, author = {Lukas Rieger}, title = {Information Flow Testing of a PGP Server}, year = {2020}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  48. Hyunsung Kim. Coverage-guided Fuzzing with Stochastic Optimization. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2020. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KimFuzzing, author = {Hyunsung Kim}, title = {Coverage-guided Fuzzing with Stochastic Optimization}, year = {2020}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2019
  1. Dirk Beyer and Chantal Keller, editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP). LNCS 11823, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31157-5 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{TAP19, title = {Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP)}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Chantal Keller}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11823}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-030-31156-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-31157-5}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://tap.sosy-lab.org/2019/}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31157-5}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer, Marieke Huisman, Fabrice Kordon, and Bernhard Steffen, editors. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 3. LNCS 11429, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{TOOLympics19, title = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 3}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman and Fabrice Kordon and Bernhard Steffen}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11429}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-030-17501-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://tacas.info/toolympics.php}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Reliable Benchmarking: Requirements and Solutions. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 21(1):1-29, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Benchmarking is a widely used method in experimental computer science, in particular, for the comparative evaluation of tools and algorithms. As a consequence, a number of questions need to be answered in order to ensure proper benchmarking, resource measurement, and presentation of results, all of which is essential for researchers, tool developers, and users, as well as for tool competitions. We identify a set of requirements that are indispensable for reliable benchmarking and resource measurement of time and memory usage of automatic solvers, verifiers, and similar tools, and discuss limitations of existing methods and benchmarking tools. Fulfilling these requirements in a benchmarking framework can (on Linux systems) currently only be done by using the cgroup and namespace features of the kernel. We developed BenchExec, a ready-to-use, tool-independent, and open-source implementation of a benchmarking framework that fulfills all presented requirements, making reliable benchmarking and resource measurement easy. Our framework is able to work with a wide range of different tools, has proven its reliability and usefulness in the International Competition on Software Verification, and is used by several research groups worldwide to ensure reliable benchmarking. Finally, we present guidelines on how to present measurement results in a scientifically valid and comprehensible way.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Benchmarking-STTT, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Reliable Benchmarking: {R}equirements and Solutions}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {21}, number = {1}, pages = {1--29}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y}, sha256 = {a50fbc212af394b32166d6354f986e7b1d5bc87220bdc50df899d6a46fedf33c}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/benchmarking/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/Latest_ReliableBenchmarking.pdf}, abstract = {Benchmarking is a widely used method in experimental computer science, in particular, for the comparative evaluation of tools and algorithms. As a consequence, a number of questions need to be answered in order to ensure proper benchmarking, resource measurement, and presentation of results, all of which is essential for researchers, tool developers, and users, as well as for tool competitions. We identify a set of requirements that are indispensable for reliable benchmarking and resource measurement of time and memory usage of automatic solvers, verifiers, and similar tools, and discuss limitations of existing methods and benchmarking tools. Fulfilling these requirements in a benchmarking framework can (on Linux systems) currently only be done by using the cgroup and namespace features of the kernel. We developed BenchExec, a ready-to-use, tool-independent, and open-source implementation of a benchmarking framework that fulfills all presented requirements, making reliable benchmarking and resource measurement easy. Our framework is able to work with a wide range of different tools, has proven its reliability and usefulness in the International Competition on Software Verification, and is used by several research groups worldwide to ensure reliable benchmarking. Finally, we present guidelines on how to present measurement results in a scientifically valid and comprehensible way.}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-STTT.Reliable_Benchmarking_Requirements_and_Solutions.pdf}, annote = {Publication appeared first online in November 2017<BR/> BenchExec is available at: <a href="https://github.com/sosy-lab/benchexec"> https://github.com/sosy-lab/benchexec</a>}, }
    Additional Infos
    Publication appeared first online in November 2017
    BenchExec is available at: https://github.com/sosy-lab/benchexec
  4. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. TestCov: Robust Test-Suite Execution and Coverage Measurement. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2019, San Diego, CA, USA, November 11-15), pages 1074-1077, 2019. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ASE.2019.00105 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {{T}est{C}ov: Robust Test-Suite Execution and Coverage Measurement}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2019, San Diego, CA, USA, November 11-15)}, pages = {1074-1077}, year = {2019}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/ASE.2019.00105}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-ASE.TestCov_Robust_Test-Suite_Execution_and_Coverage_Measurement.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-11-12_ASE19_TestCov_Thomas_Lemberger.pdf}, keyword = {Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, isbnnote = {978-1-7281-2508-4}, }
  5. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Conditional Testing - Off-the-Shelf Combination of Test-Case Generators. In Yu-Fang Chen, Chih-Hong Cheng, and Javier Esparza, editors, Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA 2019, Taipei, Taiwan, October 28-31), LNCS 11781, pages 189-208, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31784-3_11 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Testing Funding: DFG-COOP Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ATVA19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Conditional Testing - Off-the-Shelf Combination of Test-Case Generators}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA~2019, Taipei, Taiwan, October 28-31)}, editor = {Yu{-}Fang Chen and Chih{-}Hong Cheng and Javier Esparza}, pages = {189-208}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11781}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-31784-3_11}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/conditional-testing/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-ATVA.Conditional_Testing_Off-the-Shelf_Combination_of_Test-Case_Generators.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-10-29_ATVA19_Conditional_Testing_Thomas_Lemberger.pdf}, keyword = {Software Testing}, funding = {DFG-COOP}, }
  6. Dirk Beyer. A Data Set of Program Invariants and Error Paths. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2019, Montreal, Canada, May 26-27), pages 111-115, 2019. IEEE. doi:10.1109/MSR.2019.00026 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{MSR19, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {A Data Set of Program Invariants and Error Paths}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR~2019, Montreal, Canada, May 26-27)}, pages = {111-115}, year = {2019}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/MSR.2019.00026}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2559175}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-MSR.A_Data_Set_of_Program_Invariants_and_Error_Paths.pdf}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer. International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp). In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 11429, pages 167-175, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_11 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp), Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report), Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS19c, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {International Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3}, pages = {167-175}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11429}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_11}, sha256 = {80ba1d656e40b44c40e756010ccd32db5aad71820cd746b264f70244477fc737}, url = {https://test-comp.sosy-lab.org/2019/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp),Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp Report),Software Testing}, }
  8. Dirk Beyer. Automatic Verification of C and Java Programs: SV-COMP 2019. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 11429, pages 133-155, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_9 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS19b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Automatic Verification of {C} and Java Programs: {SV-COMP} 2019}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3}, pages = {133-155}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11429}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_9}, sha256 = {3ded73753689c5a68001ad42c27c2a0071f0d13546ffb8c4780891a16d9cabc7}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2019/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking}, }
  9. E. Bartocci, D. Beyer, P. E. Black, G. Fedyukovich, H. Garavel, A. Hartmanns, M. Huisman, F. Kordon, J. Nagele, M. Sighireanu, B. Steffen, M. Suda, G. Sutcliffe, T. Weber, and A. Yamada. TOOLympics 2019: An Overview of Competitions in Formal Methods. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3, LNCS 11429, pages 3-24, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_1 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS19a, author = {E.~Bartocci and D.~Beyer and P.~E.~Black and G.~Fedyukovich and H.~Garavel and A.~Hartmanns and M.~Huisman and F.~Kordon and J.~Nagele and M.~Sighireanu and B.~Steffen and M.~Suda and G.~Sutcliffe and T.~Weber and A.~Yamada}, title = {{TOOLympics} 2019: An Overview of Competitions in Formal Methods}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), part 3}, pages = {3-24}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11429}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_1}, sha256 = {1659009075a34066ea759286b122c9d96c6f21f6a23479fff2b8847c88482a71}, url = {https://tacas.info/toolympics.php}, }
  10. Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs. CoVeriTest: Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11), LNCS 11424, pages 389-408, 2019. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_23 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {CoVeriTest: Cooperative Verifier-Based Testing}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11)}, pages = {389-408}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS~11424}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_23}, sha256 = {ee64749fba4796ed79cecfaa500731ef2ac5d5e795770c44b1e7ad358f955398}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/coop-testgen/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Combining Verifiers in Conditional Model Checking via Reducers. In S. Becker, I. Bogicevic, G. Herzwurm, and S. Wagner, editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Software Management (SE/SWM 2019, Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22), LNI P-292, pages 151-152, 2019. GI. doi:10.18420/se2019-46 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    Abstract
    Software verification received lots of attention in the past two decades. Nonetheless, it remains an extremely difficult problem. Some verification tasks cannot be solved automatically by any of today’s verifiers. To still verify such tasks, one can combine the strengths of different verifiers. A promising approach to create combinations is conditional model checking (CMC). In CMC, the first verifier outputs a condition that describes the parts of the program state space that it successfully verified, and the next verifier uses that condition to steer its exploration towards the unverified state space. Despite the benefits of CMC, only few verifiers can handle conditions. To overcome this problem, we propose an automatic plug-and-play extension for verifiers. Instead of modifying verifiers, we suggest to add a preprocessor: the reducer. The reducer takes the condition and the original program and computes a residual program that encodes the unverified state space in program code. We developed one such reducer and use it to integrate existing verifiers and test-case generators into the CMC process. Our experiments show that we can solve many additional verification tasks with this reducer-based construction.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE19, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Combining Verifiers in Conditional Model Checking via Reducers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Software Management (SE/SWM~2019, Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22)}, editor = {S.~Becker and I.~Bogicevic and G.~Herzwurm and S.~Wagner}, pages = {151--152}, year = {2019}, series = {{LNI}~P-292}, publisher = {{GI}}, doi = {10.18420/se2019-46}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-SE.Combining_Verifiers_in_Conditional_Model_Checking_via_Reducers.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-02-22_SE19_CombiningVerifiersInConditionalModelChecking_Marie.pdf}, abstract = {Software verification received lots of attention in the past two decades. Nonetheless, it remains an extremely difficult problem. Some verification tasks cannot be solved automatically by any of today’s verifiers. To still verify such tasks, one can combine the strengths of different verifiers. A promising approach to create combinations is conditional model checking (CMC). In CMC, the first verifier outputs a condition that describes the parts of the program state space that it successfully verified, and the next verifier uses that condition to steer its exploration towards the unverified state space. Despite the benefits of CMC, only few verifiers can handle conditions. To overcome this problem, we propose an automatic plug-and-play extension for verifiers. Instead of modifying verifiers, we suggest to add a preprocessor: the reducer. The reducer takes the condition and the original program and computes a residual program that encodes the unverified state space in program code. We developed one such reducer and use it to integrate existing verifiers and test-case generators into the CMC process. Our experiments show that we can solve many additional verification tasks with this reducer-based construction.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2018.html#ICSE18">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2018.}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ICSE 2018.
  12. Gidon Ernst, Sean Sedwards, Zhenya Zhang, and Ichiro Hasuo. Fast Falsification of Hybrid Systems using Probabilistically Adaptive Input. In Proc. of Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST), LNCS, pages 165-181, 2019. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:qest2019, author = {Gidon Ernst and Sean Sedwards and Zhenya Zhang and Ichiro Hasuo}, title = {Fast Falsification of Hybrid Systems using Probabilistically Adaptive Input}, booktitle = {Proc. of Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST)}, volume = {11785}, pages = {165--181}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04159}, }
  13. Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray. SecCSL: Security Concurrent Separation Logic. In Proc. of Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS, pages 208-230, 2019. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:cav2019, author = {Gidon Ernst and Toby Murray}, title = {{SecCSL: Security Concurrent Separation Logic}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Computer Aided Verification (CAV)}, volume = {11562}, pages = {208--230}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-CAV.SecCSL_Security_Concurrent_Separation_Logic.pdf}, }
  14. Gidon Ernst, Paolo Arcaini, Alexandre Donze, Georgios Fainekos, Logan Mathesen, Gulia Pedrielli, Shakiba Yaghoubi, Yoriyuki Yamagata, and Zhenya Zhang. ARCH-COMP19 Category Report: Results on the Falsification Benchmarks. In Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH), EPiC, pages 129-140, 2019. EasyChair. doi:10.29007/68dk Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:arch2019, author = {Gidon Ernst and Paolo Arcaini and Alexandre Donze and Georgios Fainekos and Logan Mathesen and Gulia Pedrielli and Shakiba Yaghoubi and Yoriyuki Yamagata and Zhenya Zhang}, title = {{ARCH-COMP19 Category Report: Results on the Falsification Benchmarks}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH)}, volume = {61}, pages = {129--140}, year = {2019}, series = {EPiC}, publisher = {EasyChair}, doi = {10.29007/68dk}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-ARCH.Category_Report_Falsification.pdf}, }
  15. Gidon Ernst, Marieke Huisman, Wojciech Mostowski, and Matthias Ulbrich. VerifyThis - Verification Competition with a Human Factor. In Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), LNCS, 2019. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:toolympics2019, author = {Gidon Ernst and Marieke Huisman and Wojciech Mostowski and Matthias Ulbrich}, title = {{VerifyThis -- Verification Competition with a Human Factor}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS)}, volume = {11429}, year = {2019}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-TACAS.VerifyThis-Verification_Competition_with_a_Human_Factor.pdf}, }
  16. Rolf Hennicker, Alexander Knapp, Alexandre Madeira, and Felix Mindt. Behavioural and Abstractor Specifications for a Dynamic Logic with Binders and Silent Transitions. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Data Learning and Inference (DALI 2019, San Sebastian, Spain, September 03-06), LCNS, 2019. Springer. Link to this entry (to appear) PDF
    Abstract
    We extend dynamic logic with binders (for state variables) by distinguishing between observable and silent transitions. This differentiation gives rise to two kinds of observational interpretations of the logic: abstractor and behavioural specifications. Abstractor specifications relax the standard model class semantics of a specification by considering its closure under weak bisimulation. Behavioural specifications, however, rely on a behavioural satisfaction relation which relaxes the interpretation of state variables and the satisfaction of modal formulas ⟨α⟩φ and [α]φ by abstracting from silent transitions. A formal relation between abstractor and behavioural specifications is provided which shows that both coincide semantically under mild conditions. For the proof we instantiate the previously introduced concept of a behaviour-abstractor framework to the case of dynamic logic with binders and silent transitions.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{DaLi19, author = {Rolf Hennicker and Alexander Knapp and Alexandre Madeira and Felix Mindt}, title = {Behavioural and Abstractor Specifications for a Dynamic Logic with Binders and Silent Transitions}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the International Workshop on Data Learning and Inference (DALI~2019, San Sebastian, Spain, September 03-06)}, year = {2019}, series = {{LCNS}}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2019-DALI.Behavioural_and_Abstractor_Specifications_for_a_Dynamic_Logic_with_Binders_and_Silent_Transitions.pdf}, abstract = {We extend dynamic logic with binders (for state variables) by distinguishing between observable and silent transitions. This differentiation gives rise to two kinds of observational interpretations of the logic: abstractor and behavioural specifications. Abstractor specifications relax the standard model class semantics of a specification by considering its closure under weak bisimulation. Behavioural specifications, however, rely on a behavioural satisfaction relation which relaxes the interpretation of state variables and the satisfaction of modal formulas &lang;&alpha;&rang;&phi; and [&alpha;]&phi; by abstracting from silent transitions. A formal relation between abstractor and behavioural specifications is provided which shows that both coincide semantically under mild conditions. For the proof we instantiate the previously introduced concept of a behaviour-abstractor framework to the case of dynamic logic with binders and silent transitions.}, note = {(to appear)}, }
  17. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Software Verification with PDR: Implementation and Empirical Evaluation of the State of the Art. Technical report 1908.06271, arXiv/CoRR, August 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1908.06271 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport19b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Software Verification with PDR: Implementation and Empirical Evaluation of the State of the Art}, number = {1908.06271}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1908.06271}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {August}, }
  18. Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim. Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework. Technical report 1905.08505, arXiv/CoRR, May 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1905.08505 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TechReport19a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Verification Artifacts in Cooperative Verification: Survey and Unifying Component Framework}, number = {1905.08505}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1905.08505}, institution = {arXiv/CoRR}, month = {May}, }
  19. Sabine Bauer. Decidability of Linear Tree Constraints for Resource Analysis of Object-Oriented Programs. PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. doi:10.5282/edoc.24526 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BauerDecidability, author = {Sabine Bauer}, title = {Decidability of Linear Tree Constraints for Resource Analysis of Object-Oriented Programs}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.5282/edoc.24526}, url = {}, pdf = {https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24526/7/Bauer_Sabine.pdf}, presentation = {}, keyword = {}, annote = {}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-245263}, }
  20. Alexander Koos. Implementation and Evaluation of a Framework for Canonization and Caching of SMT Formulae. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KoosSMTCanonisationCaching, author = {Alexander Koos}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of a Framework for Canonization and Caching of {SMT} Formulae}, year = {2019}, keyword = {JavaSMT,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  21. Stephan Holzner. Design und Implementierung einer parallelen BDD-Bibliothek. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): BDD, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{HolznerParallelBDD, author = {Stephan Holzner}, title = {{Design und Implementierung einer parallelen BDD-Bibliothek}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Holzner.Design_und_Implementierung_einer_parallelen_BDD-Bibliothek.pdf}, keyword = {BDD,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  22. Michael Maier. SMT-Based Verification of ECMAScript Programs in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MichaelJavascript, author = {Michael Maier}, title = {{SMT}-Based Verification of {ECMAScript} Programs in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Maier.SMT_Based_Verification_of_ECMAScript_Programs_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-06-26_MA_SMTBasedVerificationOfECMAScriptProgramsInCPAchecker_Maier.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  23. Mirjam Trapp. Heuristics for Effective Predicate Refinement in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MirjamRefinement, author = {Mirjam Trapp}, title = {Heuristics for Effective Predicate Refinement in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  24. Thomas Bunk. LTL Software Model Checking in CPAchecker. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ThomasLTL, author = {Thomas Bunk}, title = {{LTL} Software Model Checking in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2019.Bunk.LTL_Software_Model_Checking_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-03-27_MA_LtlSoftwareModelChecking_Bunk.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  25. Maximilian Hailer. Measuring and Optimizing Energy Consumption of Verification Work on Clusters. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking, Energy Measurement PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{HailerEnergy, author = {Maximilian Hailer}, title = {Measuring and Optimizing Energy Consumption of Verification Work on Clusters}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Hailer.Measuring_and_Optimizing_Energy_Consumption_of_Verification_Work_on_Clusters.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-10-30_BA_MeasuringAndOptimizingEnergyConsumptionOfVerificationWork_Hailer.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking, Energy Measurement}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  26. Daniel Baier. Integration des SMT-Solvers Boolector in das Framework JavaSMT und Evaluation mit CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): JavaSMT PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BaierBoolector, author = {Daniel Baier}, title = {{Integration des SMT-Solvers Boolector in das Framework {{\sc JavaSMT}} und Evaluation mit {{\sc CPAchecker}}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Baier.Integration_des_SMT-Solvers_Boolector_in_das_Framework_JavaSMT_und_Evaluation_mit_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-11-27_BA_IntegrationBoolectorInJavaSMT_Baier.pdf}, keyword = {JavaSMT}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Laura Bschor. Modern Architecture and Improved UI for Tables of BenchExec. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BschorTables, author = {Laura Bschor}, title = {Modern Architecture and Improved {UI} for Tables of {{\sc BenchExec}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Bschor.Modern_Architecture_and_Improved_UI_for_Tables_of_BenchExec.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-11-06_BA_ModernArchitectureAndImprovedUIforTablesOfBenchExec_Bschor.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  28. Maximilian Wiesholler. Correctness Witness Validation using Predicate Analysis. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{WieshollerWitnesses, author = {Maximilian Wiesholler}, title = {Correctness Witness Validation using Predicate Analysis}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Wiesholler.Correctness_Witness_Validation_using_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-06-05_BA_CorrectnessWitnessValidationUsingPredicateAnalysis_Wiesholler.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  29. Krutav Shah. Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement for Interval Domain. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ShahIntervalRefinement, author = {Krutav Shah}, title = {Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement for Interval Domain}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  30. Raphael Hagl. Hybrid Testcase Generation with CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{HaglHybridExecution, author = {Raphael Hagl}, title = {Hybrid Testcase Generation with {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  31. Andrea Kreppel. Implementation and Evaluation of Backwards Analyses in the Software-Verification Framework CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Search Strategy PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KreppelBackwardsAnalysis, author = {Andrea Kreppel}, title = {Implementation and Evaluation of Backwards Analyses in the Software-Verification Framework {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Kreppel.Implementation_and_Evaluation_of_Backwards_Analyses_in_the_Software-Verification_Framework_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Search Strategy}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  32. Gregor Alexandru. Specifying Loops with Contracts. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{AlexandruLoopContracts, author = {Gregor Alexandru}, title = {Specifying Loops with Contracts}, year = {2019}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2019.Alexandru.Specifying_Loops_With_Contracts.pdf}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  33. Leonhard Volk. Bipartite Matching Problems: Algorithms and Properties. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2019. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{VolkBipartiteMatching, author = {Leonhard Volk}, title = {Bipartite Matching Problems: Algorithms and Properties}, year = {2019}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2018
  1. Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman, editors. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 2. LNCS 10806, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89963-3 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{TACAS18b, title = {Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 2}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~10806}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-89962-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-89963-3}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.etaps.org/index.php/2018/tacas}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89963-3}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman, editors. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 1. LNCS 10805, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89960-2 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @proceedings{TACAS18a, title = {Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Part 1}, editor = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~10805}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-89959-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-89960-2}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.etaps.org/index.php/2018/tacas}, pdf = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89960-2}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. A Unifying View on SMT-Based Software Verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 60(3):299-335, 2018. doi:10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    After many years of successful development of new approaches for software verification, there is a need to consolidate the knowledge about the different abstract domains and algorithms. The goal of this paper is to provide a compact and accessible presentation of four SMT-based verification approaches in order to study them in theory and in practice. We present and compare the following different "schools of thought" of software verification: bounded model checking, k-induction, predicate abstraction, and lazy abstraction with interpolants. Those approaches are well-known and successful in software verification and have in common that they are based on SMT solving as the back-end technology. We reformulate all four approaches in the unifying theoretical framework of configurable program analysis and implement them in the verification framework CPAchecker. Based on this, we can present an evaluation that thoroughly compares the different approaches, where the core differences are expressed in configuration parameters and all other variables are kept constant (such as parser front end, SMT solver, used theory in SMT formulas). We evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the approaches on a large set of verification tasks and discuss the conclusions.
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{AlgorithmComparison-JAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {A Unifying View on {SMT}-Based Software Verification}, journal = {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, volume = {60}, number = {3}, pages = {299--335}, year = {2018}, doi = {10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6}, sha256 = {5fab3eafacd7fef9c655afc9cd78bbb419ea47361a81633fb551fbf496875d84}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/k-ind-compare/}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/Latest_UnifyingViewSmtBasedSoftwareVerification.pdf}, abstract = {After many years of successful development of new approaches for software verification, there is a need to consolidate the knowledge about the different abstract domains and algorithms. The goal of this paper is to provide a compact and accessible presentation of four SMT-based verification approaches in order to study them in theory and in practice. We present and compare the following different ``schools of thought'' of software verification: bounded model checking, k-induction, predicate abstraction, and lazy abstraction with interpolants. Those approaches are well-known and successful in software verification and have in common that they are based on SMT solving as the back-end technology. We reformulate all four approaches in the unifying theoretical framework of configurable program analysis and implement them in the verification framework CPAchecker. Based on this, we can present an evaluation that thoroughly compares the different approaches, where the core differences are expressed in configuration parameters and all other variables are kept constant (such as parser front end, SMT solver, used theory in SMT formulas). We evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the approaches on a large set of verification tasks and discuss the conclusions.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, _pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-JAR.A_Unifying_View_on_SMT-Based_Software_Verification.pdf}, annote = {Publication appeared first online in December 2017<BR/> CPAchecker is available at: <a href="https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/"> https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/</a>}, issn = {1573-0670}, }
    Additional Infos
    Publication appeared first online in December 2017
    CPAchecker is available at: https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org/
  4. Yuyan Bao, Gary Leavens, and Gidon Ernst. Unifying separation logic and region logic to allow interoperability. Formal Aspects of Computing, 30(3--4):381-441, 2018. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:bao2018, author = {Yuyan Bao and Gary Leavens and Gidon Ernst}, title = {Unifying separation logic and region logic to allow interoperability}, journal = {Formal Aspects of Computing}, volume = {30}, number = {3--4}, pages = {381--441}, year = {2018}, publisher = {Springer}, }
  5. Zhenya Zhang, Gidon Ernst, Sean Sedwards, Paolo Arcaini, and Ichiro Hasuo. Two-Layered Falsification of Hybrid Systems Guided by Monte Carlo Tree Search. Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (TCAD), 37(11):2894-2905, 2018. IEEE. Link to this entry Nominated for best paper PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:emsoft2018, author = {Zhenya Zhang and Gidon Ernst and Sean Sedwards and Paolo Arcaini and Ichiro Hasuo}, title = {{Two-Layered Falsification of Hybrid Systems Guided by Monte Carlo Tree Search}}, journal = {Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (TCAD)}, volume = {37}, number = {11}, pages = {2894--2905}, year = {2018}, publisher = {IEEE}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-TCAD.Two-Layered_Falsification_of_Hybrid_Systems_guided_by_Monte_Carlo_Tree_Search.pdf}, note = {Nominated for best paper}, }
  6. Gerhard Schellhorn, Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, Stefan Bodenmüller, and Wolfgang Reif. Symbolic execution for a clash-free subset of ASMs. Science of Computer Programming (SCP), 158:21-40, 2018. Elsevier. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:scp2017, author = {Gerhard Schellhorn and Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Stefan Bodenmüller and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{Symbolic execution for a clash-free subset of ASMs}}, journal = {Science of Computer Programming (SCP)}, volume = {158}, pages = {21--40}, year = {2018}, publisher = {Elsevier}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-SCP.Symbolic_Execution_for_a_Clash-Free_Subset_of_ASMs.pdf}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer, Sumit Gulwani, and David Schmidt. Combining Model Checking and Data-Flow Analysis. In E. M. Clarke, T. A. Henzinger, H. Veith, and R. Bloem, editors, Handbook on Model Checking, pages 493-540, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @incollection{HBMC18, author = {Dirk Beyer and Sumit Gulwani and David Schmidt}, title = {Combining Model Checking and Data-Flow Analysis}, booktitle = {Handbook on Model Checking}, editor = {E.~M.~Clarke and T.~A.~Henzinger and H.~Veith and R.~Bloem}, pages = {493-540}, year = {2018}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-10574-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-HBMC.Combining_Model_Checking_and_Data-Flow_Analysis.pdf}, annote = {<a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-HBMC.Combining_Model_Checking_and_Data-Flow_Analysis.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
    Additional Infos
    Errata available.
  8. Marie-Christine Jakobs. Spontane Sicherheitsprüfung mittels individualisierter Programmzertifizierung oder Programmrestrukturierung. In S. Hölldobler, editors, Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017, LNI, pages 91-100, 2018. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract
    Korrekt funktionierende Software gewinnt immer mehr an Bedeutung. Im Vergleich zu früher ist es heutzutage schwieriger einzuschätzen, wie gut eine Software funktioniert. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass Endnutzer häufiger Software unbekannter Hersteller installieren. Endnutzer sollten sich also aktiv von der Softwarekorrektheit überzeugen, zum Beispiel in Form einer spontanen Sicherheitsprüfung. Übliche Verifikationstechniken zur Korrektheitsprüfung kommen für Endnutzer, in der Regel Laien, nicht in Frage. Die zentrale Frage ist daher, wie man einem Laien eine solche spontane Sicherheitsprüfung ermöglicht. Die Antwort der Dissertation sind einfache, automatische und generelle Verfahren zur Sicherheitsprüfung. In der Dissertation werden verschiedene Verfahren vorgeschlagen und sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch untersucht. Die vorgeschlagenen Verfahren lassen sich in zwei Forschungsrichtungen einsortieren, nämlich in die Gruppe der Proof-Carrying Code Verfahren bzw. in die Gruppe des alternativen Programs from Proofs Verfahren. Einige Verfahren kombinieren beide Forschungsrichtungen.
    BibTeX Entry
    @incollection{DissZusammenfassungJakobs, author = {Marie-Christine Jakobs}, title = {Spontane Sicherheitspr{\"{u}}fung mittels individualisierter Programmzertifizierung oder Programmrestrukturierung}, booktitle = {Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017}, editor = {S. H{\"{o}}lldobler}, volume = {{D-18}}, pages = {91-100}, year = {2018}, series = {{LNI}}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, isbn = {978-3885799771}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/19486/invited_paper_14.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, abstract = {Korrekt funktionierende Software gewinnt immer mehr an Bedeutung. Im Vergleich zu fr&uuml;her ist es heutzutage schwieriger einzusch&auml;tzen, wie gut eine Software funktioniert. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass Endnutzer h&auml;ufiger Software unbekannter Hersteller installieren. Endnutzer sollten sich also aktiv von der Softwarekorrektheit &uuml;berzeugen, zum Beispiel in Form einer spontanen Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung. &Uuml;bliche Verifikationstechniken zur Korrektheitspr&uuml;fung kommen f&uuml;r Endnutzer, in der Regel Laien, nicht in Frage. Die zentrale Frage ist daher, wie man einem Laien eine solche spontane Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung erm&ouml;glicht. Die Antwort der Dissertation sind einfache, automatische und generelle Verfahren zur Sicherheitspr&uuml;fung. In der Dissertation werden verschiedene Verfahren vorgeschlagen und sowohl theoretisch als auch praktisch untersucht. Die vorgeschlagenen Verfahren lassen sich in zwei Forschungsrichtungen einsortieren, n&auml;mlich in die Gruppe der Proof-Carrying Code Verfahren bzw. in die Gruppe des alternativen Programs from Proofs Verfahren. Einige Verfahren kombinieren beide Forschungsrichtungen.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a German summary of the dissertation On-The-Fly Safety Checking - Customizing Program Certification and Program Restructuring.}, doifalse = {20.500.12116/19486}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/19486}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a German summary of the dissertation On-The-Fly Safety Checking - Customizing Program Certification and Program Restructuring.
  9. Philipp Wendler. Beiträge zu praktikabler Prädikatenanalyse. In S. Hölldobler, editors, Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017, LNI, pages 261-270, 2018. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking, CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Der Stand der Forschung im Bereich der automatischen Software-Verifikation ist fragmentiert. Verschiedene Verfahren existieren nebeneinander in unterschiedlichen Darstellungen und mit wenig Bezug zueinander, aussagekräftige Vergleiche sind selten. Die Dissertation adressiert dieses Problem. Ein konfigurierbares und flexibles Rahmenwerk zur Vereinheitlichung solcher Verfahren wird entwickelt und mehrere vorhandene Verfahren werden in diesem Rahmenwerk ausgedrückt. Dies bringt neue Erkenntnisse über die Kernideen dieser Verfahren, ermöglicht experimentelle Studien in einer neuartigen Qualität, und erleichtert die Forschung an Kombinationen und Weiterentwicklungen dieser Verfahren. Die Implementierung dieses Rahmenwerks im erfolgreichen Verifizierer CPAchecker wird in der bisher größten derartigen experimentellen Studie (120 verschiedene Konfigurationen, 671280 Ausführungen) evaluiert. Hierzu wird ein Benchmarking-System präsentiert, das mit Hilfe moderner Technologien signifikante qualitative Messfehler existierender Systeme vermeidet.
    BibTeX Entry
    @incollection{DissZusammenfassungWendler, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {Beitr{\"{a}}ge zu praktikabler Pr{\"{a}}dikatenanalyse}, booktitle = {Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2017}, editor = {S. H{\"{o}}lldobler}, volume = {{D-18}}, pages = {261-270}, year = {2018}, series = {{LNI}}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, isbn = {978-3885799771}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/wendler/}, pdf = {https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/19476/invited_paper_4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-05-08_GiDiss_BeitraegeZuPraktikablerPraedikatenanalyse.pdf}, abstract = {Der Stand der Forschung im Bereich der automatischen Software-Verifikation ist fragmentiert. Verschiedene Verfahren existieren nebeneinander in unterschiedlichen Darstellungen und mit wenig Bezug zueinander, aussagekr&auml;ftige Vergleiche sind selten. Die Dissertation adressiert dieses Problem. Ein konfigurierbares und flexibles Rahmenwerk zur Vereinheitlichung solcher Verfahren wird entwickelt und mehrere vorhandene Verfahren werden in diesem Rahmenwerk ausgedr&uuml;ckt. Dies bringt neue Erkenntnisse &uuml;ber die Kernideen dieser Verfahren, erm&ouml;glicht experimentelle Studien in einer neuartigen Qualit&auml;t, und erleichtert die Forschung an Kombinationen und Weiterentwicklungen dieser Verfahren. Die Implementierung dieses Rahmenwerks im erfolgreichen Verifizierer CPAchecker wird in der bisher gr&ouml;&szlig;ten derartigen experimentellen Studie (120 verschiedene Konfigurationen, 671280 Ausf&uuml;hrungen) evaluiert. Hierzu wird ein Benchmarking-System pr&auml;sentiert, das mit Hilfe moderner Technologien signifikante qualitative Messfehler existierender Systeme vermeidet.}, keyword = {Benchmarking,CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a German summary of the dissertation <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2017.complete.html#PhilippPredicateAnalysis">Towards Practical Predicate Analysis</a>.}, doifalse = {20.500.12116/19476}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/19476}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a German summary of the dissertation Towards Practical Predicate Analysis.
  10. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. In-Place vs. Copy-on-Write CEGAR Refinement for Block Summarization with Caching. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2018, Part 2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9), LNCS 11245, pages 197-215, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_14 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, BAM Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Block summarization is an efficient technique in software verification to decompose a verification problem into separate tasks and to avoid repeated exploration of reusable parts of a program. In order to benefit from abstraction at the same time, block summarization can be combined with counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). This causes the following problem: whenever CEGAR instructs the model checker to refine the abstraction along a path, several block summaries are affected and need to be updated. There exist two different refinement strategies: a destructive in-place approach that modifies the existing block abstractions and a constructive copy-on-write approach that does not change existing data. While the in-place approach is used in the field for several years, our new approach of copy-on-write refinement has the following important advantage: A complete exportable proof of the program is available after the analysis has finished. Due to the benefit from avoiding recomputations of missing information as necessary for in-place updates, the new approach causes almost no computational overhead overall. We perform a large experimental evaluation to compare the new approach with the previous one to show that full proofs can be achieved without overhead.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISoLA18b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {In-Place vs. Copy-on-Write CEGAR Refinement for Block Summarization with Caching}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2018, Part~2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {197-215}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~11245}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bam-cow-refinement/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ISoLA.In-Place_vs_Copy-on-Write_CEGAR_Refinement_for_Block_Summarization_with_Caching.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-11-06_ISoLA18_BAM-CoW-Refinement_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {Block summarization is an efficient technique in software verification to decompose a verification problem into separate tasks and to avoid repeated exploration of reusable parts of a program. In order to benefit from abstraction at the same time, block summarization can be combined with counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR). This causes the following problem: whenever CEGAR instructs the model checker to refine the abstraction along a path, several block summaries are affected and need to be updated. There exist two different refinement strategies: a destructive in-place approach that modifies the existing block abstractions and a constructive copy-on-write approach that does not change existing data. While the in-place approach is used in the field for several years, our new approach of copy-on-write refinement has the following important advantage: A complete exportable proof of the program is available after the analysis has finished. Due to the benefit from avoiding recomputations of missing information as necessary for in-place updates, the new approach causes almost no computational overhead overall. We perform a large experimental evaluation to compare the new approach with the previous one to show that full proofs can be achieved without overhead.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,BAM}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Strategy Selection for Software Verification Based on Boolean Features: A Simple but Effective Approach. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2018, Part 2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9), LNCS 11245, pages 144-159, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISoLA18a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Strategy Selection for Software Verification Based on Boolean Features: A Simple but Effective Approach}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2018, Part~2, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {144-159}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~11245}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ISoLA.Strategy_Selection_for_Software_Verification_Based_on_Boolean_Features.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-11-05_ISoLA18_StrategySelection_Dirk.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. CPA-SymExec: Efficient Symbolic Execution in CPAchecker. In Marianne Huchard, Christian Kästner, and Gordon Fraser, editors, Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7), pages 900-903, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3238147.3240478 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Video Supplement
    Abstract
    We present CPA-SymExec, a tool for symbolic execution that is implemented in the open-source, configurable verification framework CPAchecker. Our implementation automatically detects which symbolic facts to track, in order to obtain a small set of constraints that are necessary to decide reachability of a program area of interest. CPA-SymExec is based on abstraction and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), and uses a constraint-interpolation approach to detect symbolic facts. We show that our implementation can better mitigate the path-explosion problem than symbolic execution without abstraction, by comparing the performance to the state-of-the-art Klee-based symbolic-execution engine Symbiotic and to Klee itself. For the experiments we use two kinds of analysis tasks: one for finding an executable path to a specific location of interest (e.g., if a test vector is desired to show that a certain behavior occurs), and one for confirming that no executable path to a specific location exists (e.g., if it is desired to show that a certain behavior never occurs). CPA-SymExec is released under the Apache 2 license and available (inclusive source code) at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org. A demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/qoBHtvPKtnw.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE18b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {{CPA-SymExec}: Efficient Symbolic Execution in {CPAchecker}}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd {ACM/IEEE} International Conference on Automated Software Engineering ({ASE}~2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7)}, editor = {Marianne Huchard and Christian K{\"{a}}stner and Gordon Fraser}, pages = {900-903}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3238147.3240478}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-symexec-tool/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ASE.CPA-SymExec_Efficient_Symbolic_Execution_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-09-07_ASE18_CPASymExec_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {We present CPA-SymExec, a tool for symbolic execution that is implemented in the open-source, configurable verification framework CPAchecker. Our implementation automatically detects which symbolic facts to track, in order to obtain a small set of constraints that are necessary to decide reachability of a program area of interest. CPA-SymExec is based on abstraction and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), and uses a constraint-interpolation approach to detect symbolic facts. We show that our implementation can better mitigate the path-explosion problem than symbolic execution without abstraction, by comparing the performance to the state-of-the-art Klee-based symbolic-execution engine Symbiotic and to Klee itself. For the experiments we use two kinds of analysis tasks: one for finding an executable path to a specific location of interest (e.g., if a test vector is desired to show that a certain behavior occurs), and one for confirming that no executable path to a specific location exists (e.g., if it is desired to show that a certain behavior never occurs). CPA-SymExec is released under the Apache 2 license and available (inclusive source code) at https://cpachecker.sosy-lab.org. A demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/qoBHtvPKtnw.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, video = {https://youtu.be/7o7EtpbV8NM}, }
  13. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. Domain-Independent Multi-threaded Software Model Checking. In Marianne Huchard, Christian Kästner, and Gordon Fraser, editors, Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7, 2018, pages 634-644, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3238147.3238195 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, BAM Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Recent development of software aims at massively parallel execution, because of the trend to increase the number of processing units per CPU socket. But many approaches for program analysis are not designed to benefit from a multi-threaded execution and lack support to utilize multi-core computers. Rewriting existing algorithms is difficult and error-prone, and the design of new parallel algorithms also has limitations. An orthogonal problem is the granularity: computing each successor state in parallel seems too fine-grained, so the open question is to find the right structural level for parallel execution. We propose an elegant solution to these problems: Block summaries should be computed in parallel. Many successful approaches to software verification are based on summaries of control-flow blocks, large blocks, or function bodies. Block-abstraction memoization is a successful domain-independent approach for summary-based program analysis. We redesigned the verification approach of block-abstraction memoization starting from its original recursive definition, such that it can run in a parallel manner for utilizing the available computation resources without losing its advantages of being independent from a certain abstract domain. We present an implementation of our new approach for multi-core shared-memory machines. The experimental evaluation shows that our summary-based approach has no significant overhead compared to the existing sequential approach and that it has a significant speedup when using multi-threading.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ASE18a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Domain-Independent Multi-threaded Software Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd {ACM/IEEE} International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, {ASE} 2018, Montpellier, France, September 3-7, 2018}, editor = {Marianne Huchard and Christian K{\"{a}}stner and Gordon Fraser}, pages = {634-644}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/3238147.3238195}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bam-parallel/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ASE.Domain-Independent_Multi-threaded_Software_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-09-07_ASE18_ParallelBAM_Karlheinz.pdf}, abstract = {Recent development of software aims at massively parallel execution, because of the trend to increase the number of processing units per CPU socket. But many approaches for program analysis are not designed to benefit from a multi-threaded execution and lack support to utilize multi-core computers. Rewriting existing algorithms is difficult and error-prone, and the design of new parallel algorithms also has limitations. An orthogonal problem is the granularity: computing each successor state in parallel seems too fine-grained, so the open question is to find the right structural level for parallel execution. We propose an elegant solution to these problems: Block summaries should be computed in parallel. Many successful approaches to software verification are based on summaries of control-flow blocks, large blocks, or function bodies. Block-abstraction memoization is a successful domain-independent approach for summary-based program analysis. We redesigned the verification approach of block-abstraction memoization starting from its original recursive definition, such that it can run in a parallel manner for utilizing the available computation resources without losing its advantages of being independent from a certain abstract domain. We present an implementation of our new approach for multi-core shared-memory machines. The experimental evaluation shows that our summary-based approach has no significant overhead compared to the existing sequential approach and that it has a significant speedup when using multi-threading.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,BAM}, }
  14. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Thomas Lemberger, and Michael Tautschnig. Tests from Witnesses: Execution-Based Validation of Verification Results. In Catherine Dubois and Burkhart Wolff, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP 2018, Toulouse, France, June 27-29), LNCS 10889, pages 3-23, 2018. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    The research community made enormous progress in the past years in developing algorithms for verifying software, as shown by verification competitions (SV-COMP). However, the ultimate goal is to design certifying algorithms, which produce for a given input not only the output but in addition a witness. This makes it possible to validate that the output is a correct solution for the input problem. The advantage of certifying algorithms is that the validation of the result is —thanks to the witness— easier than the computation of the result. Unfortunately, the transfer to industry is slow, one of the reasons being that some verifiers report a considerable number of false alarms. The verification community works towards this ultimate goal using exchangeable violation witnesses, i.e., an independent validator can be used to check whether the produced witness indeed represents a bug. This reduces the required trust base from the complex verification tool to a validator that may be less complex, and thus, more easily trustable. But existing witness validators are based on model-checking technology — which does not solve the problem of reducing the trust base. To close this gap, we present a simple concept that is based on program execution: We extend witness validation by generating a test vector from an error path that is reconstructed from the witness. Then, we generate a test harness (similar to unit-test code) that can be compiled and linked together with the original program. We then run the executable program in an isolating container. If the execution violates the specification (similar to runtime verification) we confirm that the witness indeed represents a bug. This method reduces the trust base to the execution system, which seems appropriate for avoiding false alarms. To show feasibility and practicality, we implemented execution-based witness validation in two completely independent analysis frameworks, and performed a large experimental study.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TAP18, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Thomas Lemberger and Michael Tautschnig}, title = {Tests from Witnesses: Execution-Based Validation of Verification Results}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP~2018, Toulouse, France, June 27-29)}, editor = {Catherine Dubois and Burkhart Wolff}, pages = {3-23}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~10889}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-92994-1_1}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/tests-from-witnesses/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-TAP.Tests_from_Witnesses_Execution-Based_Validation_of_Verification_Results.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-06-27_TAP18-Keynote-CooperativeVerification_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {The research community made enormous progress in the past years in developing algorithms for verifying software, as shown by verification competitions (SV-COMP). However, the ultimate goal is to design certifying algorithms, which produce for a given input not only the output but in addition a witness. This makes it possible to validate that the output is a correct solution for the input problem. The advantage of certifying algorithms is that the validation of the result is —thanks to the witness— easier than the computation of the result. Unfortunately, the transfer to industry is slow, one of the reasons being that some verifiers report a considerable number of false alarms. The verification community works towards this ultimate goal using exchangeable violation witnesses, i.e., an independent validator can be used to check whether the produced witness indeed represents a bug. This reduces the required trust base from the complex verification tool to a validator that may be less complex, and thus, more easily trustable. But existing witness validators are based on model-checking technology — which does not solve the problem of reducing the trust base. To close this gap, we present a simple concept that is based on program execution: We extend witness validation by generating a test vector from an error path that is reconstructed from the witness. Then, we generate a test harness (similar to unit-test code) that can be compiled and linked together with the original program. We then run the executable program in an isolating container. If the execution violates the specification (similar to runtime verification) we confirm that the witness indeed represents a bug. This method reduces the trust base to the execution system, which seems appropriate for avoiding false alarms. To show feasibility and practicality, we implemented execution-based witness validation in two completely independent analysis frameworks, and performed a large experimental study.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
  15. Dirk Beyer, Marie-Christine Jakobs, Thomas Lemberger, and Heike Wehrheim. Reducer-Based Construction of Conditional Verifiers. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 3), pages 1182-1193, 2018. ACM. doi:10.1145/3180155.3180259 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Despite recent advances, software verification remains challenging. To solve hard verification tasks, we need to leverage not just one but several different verifiers employing different technologies. To this end, we need to exchange information between verifiers. Conditional model checking was proposed as a solution to exactly this problem: The idea is to let the first verifier output a condition which describes the state space that it successfully verified and to instruct the second verifier to verify the yet unverified state space using this condition. However, most verifiers do not understand conditions as input. In this paper, we propose the usage of an off-the-shelf construction of a conditional verifier from a given traditional verifier and a reducer. The reducer takes as input the program to be verified and the condition, and outputs a residual program whose paths cover the unverified state space described by the condition. As a proof of concept, we designed and implemented one particular reducer and composed three conditional model checkers from the three best verifiers at SV-COMP 2017. We defined a set of claims and experimentally evaluated their validity. All experimental data and results are available for replication.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ICSE18, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marie-Christine Jakobs and Thomas Lemberger and Heike Wehrheim}, title = {Reducer-Based Construction of Conditional Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 3)}, pages = {1182-1193}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, isbn = {978-1-4503-5638-1}, doi = {10.1145/3180155.3180259}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/reducer/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ICSE.Reducer-Based_Construction_of_Conditional_Verifiers.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2018-06-01_ICSE18_ReducerBasedConstructionOfConditionalVerifiers_Marie.pdf}, abstract = {Despite recent advances, software verification remains challenging. To solve hard verification tasks, we need to leverage not just one but several different verifiers employing different technologies. To this end, we need to exchange information between verifiers. Conditional model checking was proposed as a solution to exactly this problem: The idea is to let the first verifier output a condition which describes the state space that it successfully verified and to instruct the second verifier to verify the yet unverified state space using this condition. However, most verifiers do not understand conditions as input. In this paper, we propose the usage of an off-the-shelf construction of a conditional verifier from a given traditional verifier and a reducer. The reducer takes as input the program to be verified and the condition, and outputs a residual program whose paths cover the unverified state space described by the condition. As a proof of concept, we designed and implemented one particular reducer and composed three conditional model checkers from the three best verifiers at SV-COMP 2017. We defined a set of claims and experimentally evaluated their validity. All experimental data and results are available for replication.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  16. Markus Schordan, Dirk Beyer, and Stephen F. Siegel. Evaluating Tools for Software Verification (Track Introduction). In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5-9), Part 2, LNCS 11245, pages 139-143, 2018. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_10 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISOLA18-TrackIntro, author = {Markus Schordan and Dirk Beyer and Stephen F. Siegel}, title = {Evaluating Tools for Software Verification (Track Introduction)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2018, Limassol, Cyprus, November 5--9), Part 2}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {139-143}, year = {2018}, series = {LNCS~11245}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-030-03420-7}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_10}, sha256 = {}, url = {}, keyword = {}, }
  17. Abdullah Issa, Toby Murray, and Gidon Ernst. In Search of Perfect Users: Towards Understanding the Usability of Converged Multi-Level Secure User Interfaces. In Proc. of Computer Human Interaction Australia (OzCHI), pages 572-576, 2018. ACM. Link to this entry Work in Progress Report. PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:ozchi2018, author = {Abdullah Issa and Toby Murray and Gidon Ernst}, title = {{In Search of Perfect Users: Towards Understanding the Usability of Converged Multi-Level Secure User Interfaces}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Computer Human Interaction Australia (OzCHI)}, pages = {572--576}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ACM}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-OzCHI.In_Search_of_Perfect_Users.pdf}, note = {Work in Progress Report.}, }
  18. Adel Dokhanchi, Shakiba Yaghoubi, Bardh Hoxha, Georgios Fainekos, Gidon Ernst, Zhenya Zhang, Paolo Arcaini, Ichiro Hasuo, and Sean Sedwards. ARCH-COMP18 Category Report: Results on the Falsification Benchmarks. In Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH), EPiC, pages 104-109, 2018. EasyChair. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:arch2018, author = {Adel Dokhanchi and Shakiba Yaghoubi and Bardh Hoxha and Georgios Fainekos and Gidon Ernst and Zhenya Zhang and Paolo Arcaini and Ichiro Hasuo and Sean Sedwards}, title = {{ARCH-COMP18 Category Report: Results on the Falsification Benchmarks}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Systems (ARCH)}, volume = {54}, pages = {104--109}, year = {2018}, series = {EPiC}, publisher = {EasyChair}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-ARCH.Results_on_the_Falsification_Benchmarks.pdf}, }
  19. Zhenya Zhang, Gidon Ernst, Ichiro Hasuo, and Sean Sedwards. Time-staging Enhancement of Hybrid System Falsification (Abstract). In Proc. of Monitoring and Testing of Cyber-Physical Systems (MT-CPS), 2018. IEEE. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:mt-cps2018, author = {Zhenya Zhang and Gidon Ernst and Ichiro Hasuo and Sean Sedwards}, title = {{Time-staging Enhancement of Hybrid System Falsification (Abstract)}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Monitoring and Testing of Cyber-Physical Systems (MT-CPS)}, year = {2018}, publisher = {IEEE}, }
  20. Marieke Huisman, Rosemary Monahan, Peter Müller, Andrei Paskevich, and Gidon Ernst. VerifyThis 2018: A Program Verification Competition. Technical report hal-01981937, Université Paris-Saclay, 2018. Link to this entry PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{ernst:verifythis2018, author = {Marieke Huisman and Rosemary Monahan and Peter Müller and Andrei Paskevich and Gidon Ernst}, title = {{VerifyThis 2018: A Program Verification Competition}}, number = {hal-01981937}, year = {2018}, url = {https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01981937}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-HAL.VerifyThis_2018.pdf}, institution = {Universit{\'e} Paris-Saclay}, }
  21. Gidon Ernst, Ichiro Hasuo, Zhenya Zhang, and Sean Sedwards. Time-staging Enhancement of Hybrid System Falsification. 2018. Link to this entry Presented at: Symbolic and Numerical Methods for Reachability Analysis (SNR). To appear in Proc. of SNR 2021. PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ernst:snr2018, author = {Gidon Ernst and Ichiro Hasuo and Zhenya Zhang and Sean Sedwards}, title = {{Time-staging Enhancement of Hybrid System Falsification}}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2018-SNR.Time-staging_Enhancement_of_Hybrid_System_Falsification.pdf}, note = {Presented at: Symbolic and Numerical Methods for Reachability Analysis (SNR). To appear in Proc. of SNR 2021.}, }
  22. Johannes Knaut. Symbolic Heap Abstraction with Automatic Refinement. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{JohannesSymbolicHeapRefinement, author = {Johannes Knaut}, title = {Symbolic Heap Abstraction with Automatic Refinement}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Knaut.Symbolic_Heap_Abstraction_with_Automatic_Refinement.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  23. Martin Spiessl. Configurable Software Verification based on Slicing Abstractions. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MartinSplitting, author = {Martin Spiessl}, title = {Configurable Software Verification based on Slicing Abstractions}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Spiessl.Configurable_Software_Verification_based_on_Slicing_Abstractions.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  24. Thomas Lemberger. Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking: Program Slicing + CEGAR. Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ThomasSlicing, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking: Program Slicing + {CEGAR}}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2018.Lemberger.Abstraction_Refinement_for_Model_Checking_Program_Slicing_and_Cegar.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  25. Matthias Gerlach. Newton Refinement as Alternative to Craig Interpolation in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Presentation
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{GerlachNewtonRefinement, author = {Matthias Gerlach}, title = {Newton Refinement as Alternative to {Craig} Interpolation in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2018}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2018.Gerlach.Newton_Refinement_as_Alternative_to_Craig_Interpolation_in_CPAchecker.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2019-01-09_BA_NewtonRefinementAsAlternativeToCraigInterpolationInCPAchecker_Gerlach.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  26. Flutura Estler. Heuristics-Based Selection of Verification Configurations. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{EstlerHeuristic, author = {Flutura Estler}, title = {Heuristics-Based Selection of Verification Configurations}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  27. Balthasar Schuess. Flexible Online Job Scheduling in a Multi-User Environment. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Cloud-Based Software Verification
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SchuessScheduling, author = {Balthasar Schuess}, title = {Flexible Online Job Scheduling in a Multi-User Environment}, year = {2018}, keyword = {Cloud-Based Software Verification}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  28. Dominik Friedrich. Konzeption, Umsetzung und Visualisierung von statistischen Daten in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{FriedrichStatistics, author = {Dominik Friedrich}, title = {{Konzeption, Umsetzung und Visualisierung von statistischen Daten in CPAchecker}}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  29. Moritz Buhl. Application of Software Verification to OpenBSD Network Modules. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BuhlOpenBSD, author = {Moritz Buhl}, title = {Application of Software Verification to {{\sc OpenBSD}} Network Modules}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  30. Nicholas Reyes. Integrating a Witness Store into a Distributed Verification System. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Witness-Based Validation, Cloud-Based Software Verification
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ReyesWitnessStore, author = {Nicholas Reyes}, title = {Integrating a Witness Store into a Distributed Verification System}, year = {2018}, keyword = {Witness-Based Validation,Cloud-Based Software Verification}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  31. Dominik Pastau. Implementation of a Generic Cloud-Based File-Storage Solution and its Integration into a Web-Based Distributed Verification System. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Cloud-Based Software Verification
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{PastauWitnessStore, author = {Dominik Pastau}, title = {Implementation of a Generic Cloud-Based File-Storage Solution and its Integration into a Web-Based Distributed Verification System}, year = {2018}, keyword = {Cloud-Based Software Verification}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  32. Karam Shabita. String Analysis for Java Programs in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2018. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SharamStrings, author = {Karam Shabita}, title = {String Analysis for {Java} Programs in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2018}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }

2017
  1. Dirk Beyer, Rolf Hennicker, Martin Hofmann, Tobias Nipkow, and Martin Wirsing. Software-Verifikation. In A. Bode, M. Broy, H.-J. Bungartz, and F. Matthes, editors, 50 Jahre Universitäts-Informatik in München, pages 75-86, 2017. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54712-0_5 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @incollection{InfMUC17, author = {Dirk Beyer and Rolf Hennicker and Martin Hofmann and Tobias Nipkow and Martin Wirsing}, title = {Software-Verifikation}, booktitle = {50 Jahre Universit{\"a}ts-Informatik in M{\"u}nchen}, editor = {A.~Bode and M.~Broy and H.-J.~Bungartz and F.~Matthes}, pages = {75-86}, year = {2017}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-662-54711-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54712-0_5}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-50JahreInfMUC.Software-Verifikation.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Software Verification: Testing vs. Model Checking. In O. Strichman and R. Tzoref-Brill, editors, Proceedings of the 13th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC 2017, Haifa, Israel, November 13-25), LNCS 10629, pages 99-114, 2017. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70389-3_7 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    In practice, software testing has been the established method for finding bugs in programs for a long time. But in the last 15 years, software model checking has received a lot of attention, and many successful tools for software model checking exist today. We believe it is time for a careful comparative evaluation of automatic software testing against automatic software model checking. We chose six existing tools for automatic test-case generation, namely AFL-fuzz, CPATiger, Crest-ppc, FShell, Klee, and PRtest, and four tools for software model checking, namely CBMC, CPA-Seq, ESBMC-incr, and ESBMC-kInd, for the task of finding specification violations in a large benchmark suite consisting of 5693 C programs. In order to perform such an evaluation, we have implemented a framework for test-based falsification (TBF) that executes and validates test cases produced by test-case generation tools in order to find errors in programs. The conclusion of our experiments is that software model checkers can (i) find a substantially larger number of bugs (ii) in less time, and (iii) require less adjustment to the input programs.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{HVC17, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Software Verification: Testing vs. Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th Haifa Verification Conference (HVC~2017, Haifa, Israel, November 13-25)}, editor = {O.~Strichman and R.~Tzoref-Brill}, pages = {99-114}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10629}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-70389-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-70389-3_7}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/test-study/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-HVC.Software_Verification_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2017-11-15_HVC17_TestStudy_Thomas.pdf}, abstract = {In practice, software testing has been the established method for finding bugs in programs for a long time. But in the last 15 years, software model checking has received a lot of attention, and many successful tools for software model checking exist today. We believe it is time for a careful comparative evaluation of automatic software testing against automatic software model checking. We chose six existing tools for automatic test-case generation, namely AFL-fuzz, CPATiger, Crest-ppc, FShell, Klee, and PRtest, and four tools for software model checking, namely CBMC, CPA-Seq, ESBMC-incr, and ESBMC-kInd, for the task of finding specification violations in a large benchmark suite consisting of 5693 C programs. In order to perform such an evaluation, we have implemented a framework for test-based falsification (TBF) that executes and validates test cases produced by test-case generation tools in order to find errors in programs. The conclusion of our experiments is that software model checkers can (i) find a substantially larger number of bugs (ii) in less time, and (iii) require less adjustment to the input programs.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won the HVC 2017 Best Paper Award.<br> <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-HVC.Software_Verification_Testing_vs_Model_Checking.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
    Additional Infos
    Won the HVC 2017 Best Paper Award.
    Errata available.
  3. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification with Validation of Results (Report on SV-COMP 2017). In A. Legay and T. Margaria, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29), LNCS 10206, pages 331-349, 2017. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS17, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification with Validation of Results ({R}eport on {SV-COMP} 2017)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29)}, editor = {A.~Legay and T.~Margaria}, pages = {331-349}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-54579-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_20}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2017/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-TACAS.Software_Verification_with_Validation_of_Results.pdf}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, and Matthias Heizmann. Exchanging Verification Witnesses between Verifiers. In J. Jürjens and K. Schneider, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2017, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (21.-24. Februar 2017, Hannover, Deutschland), LNI P-267, pages 93-94, 2017. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE17-Witnesses, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann}, title = {Exchanging Verification Witnesses between Verifiers}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2017, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (21.-24. Februar 2017, Hannover, Deutschland)}, editor = {J.~J{\"{u}}rjens and K.~Schneider}, pages = {93-94}, year = {2017}, series = {{LNI}~P-267}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2016.html#FSE16b">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2016.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/1288}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2016.
  5. Jörg Pfähler, Gidon Ernst, Stefan Bodenmüller, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Wolfgang Reif. Modular verification of order-preserving writeback caches. In Proc. of Integrated Formal Methods (iFM), LNCS, pages 375-390, 2017. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:ifm2017, author = {Jörg Pfähler and Gidon Ernst and Stefan Bodenmüller and Gerhard Schellhorn and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {Modular verification of order-preserving writeback caches}, booktitle = {Proc. of Integrated Formal Methods (iFM)}, volume = {10510}, pages = {375--390}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2017-iFM.Modular_Verification_of_Order-Preserving_Write-Back_Caches.pdf}, }
  6. Pavel Andrianov, Karlheinz Friedberger, Mikhail U. Mandrykin, Vadim S. Mutilin, and Anton Volkov. CPA-BAM-BnB: Block-Abstraction Memoization and Region-Based Memory Models for Predicate Abstractions (Competition Contribution). In Axel Legay and Tiziana Margaria, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29), LNCS 10206, pages 355-359, 2017. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    Our submission to SV-COMP'17 is based on the software verification framework CPAchecker. Combined with value analysis and predicate analysis we use the concept of block-abstraction memoization with optimization and several fixes relative to the version of SV-COMP'16. A novelty of our approach is usage of BnB memory model for predicate analysis, which efficiently divides the accessed memory into memory regions and thus leads to smaller formulas.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CPABAM-COMP17, author = {Pavel Andrianov and Karlheinz Friedberger and Mikhail U. Mandrykin and Vadim S. Mutilin and Anton Volkov}, title = {{CPA-BAM-BnB}: {Block}-Abstraction Memoization and Region-Based Memory Models for Predicate Abstractions (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29)}, editor = {Axel Legay and Tiziana Margaria}, pages = {355--359}, year = {2017}, series = {LNCS~10206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-54579-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_22}, abstract = {Our submission to SV-COMP'17 is based on the software verification framework CPAchecker. Combined with value analysis and predicate analysis we use the concept of block-abstraction memoization with optimization and several fixes relative to the version of SV-COMP'16. A novelty of our approach is usage of BnB memory model for predicate analysis, which efficiently divides the accessed memory into memory regions and thus leads to smaller formulas.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, }
  7. Philipp Wendler. Towards Practical Predicate Analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking, CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{PhilippPredicateAnalysis, author = {Philipp Wendler}, title = {Towards Practical Predicate Analysis}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/wendler/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/2017.Wendler.Towards_Practical_Predicate_Analysis.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2017-11-20_RigorosumWendler_TowardsPracticalPredicateAnalysis.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking,CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Nominated for the <a href="https://gi.de/aktuelles/wettbewerbe/dissertationspreis/">Dissertation award 2017</a> of the German <a href="https://gi.de/">Gesellschaft f&uuml;r Informatik (GI)</a>}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:739-opus4-5098}, }
    Additional Infos
  8. Stefan Löwe. Effective Approaches to Abstraction Refinement for Automatic Software Verification. PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{StefanValueDomain, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {Effective Approaches to Abstraction Refinement for Automatic Software Verification}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/loewe/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/phd/2017.Loewe.Effective_Approaches_to_Abstraction_Refinement_for_Automatic_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, urn = {urn:nbn:de:bvb:739-opus4-4815}, }
  9. Evgeny Dunaev. Entwurf und Implementierung einer Abstraktionsschicht für Zuweisungs-basierte Analysen. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Refactoring
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{DunaevUnifyingAnalysis, author = {Evgeny Dunaev}, title = {{Entwurf und Implementierung einer Abstraktionsschicht f{\"u}r Zuweisungs-basierte Analysen}}, year = {2017}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Refactoring}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  10. Deyan Ivanov. Interactive Visualization of Verification Results from CPAchecker with D3. Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{IvanovVisualization, author = {Deyan Ivanov}, title = {Interactive Visualization of Verification Results from {{\sc CPAchecker}} with {{\sc D3}}}, year = {2017}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2017.Ivanov.Interactive_Visualization_of_Verification_Results_from_CPAchecker_with_D3.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, LMU Munich, Software Systems Lab}, }
  11. Nils Steinger. Measuring, Visualizing, and Optimizing the Energy Consumption of Computer Clusters. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SteingerMeasuring, author = {Nils Steinger}, title = {Measuring, Visualizing, and Optimizing the Energy Consumption of Computer Clusters}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/steinger}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2017.Steinger.Measuring,_Visualizing,_and_Optimizing_the_Energy_Consumption_of_Computer_Clusters.pdf}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  12. Gernot Zoerneck. Implementing PDR in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2017. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ZoerneckPDR, author = {Gernot Zoerneck}, title = {Implementing {PDR} in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2017}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }

2016
  1. Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Wolfgang Reif. Modular, crash-safe refinement for ASMs with submachines. Science of Computer Programming (SCP), 131:3-21, 2016. Elsevier. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:scp2016, author = {Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Gerhard Schellhorn and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{Modular, crash-safe refinement for ASMs with submachines}}, journal = {Science of Computer Programming (SCP)}, volume = {131}, pages = {3--21}, year = {2016}, publisher = {Elsevier}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-SCP.Modular_Crash-Safe_Refinement_for_ASMs_with_Submachines.pdf}, }
  2. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, and Matthias Heizmann. Correctness Witnesses: Exchanging Verification Results Between Verifiers. In T. Zimmermann, J. Cleland-Huang, and Z. Su, editors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18), pages 326-337, 2016. ACM. doi:10.1145/2950290.2950351 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FSE16b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann}, title = {Correctness Witnesses: {E}xchanging Verification Results Between Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE~2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18)}, editor = {T.~Zimmermann and J.~Cleland-Huang and Z.~Su}, pages = {326-337}, year = {2016}, publisher = {ACM}, doi = {10.1145/2950290.2950351}, sha256 = {}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-FSE.Correctness_Witnesses_Exchanging_Verification_Results_between_Verifiers.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
  3. Sven Apel, Dirk Beyer, Vitaly Mordan, Vadim Mutilin, and Andreas Stahlbauer. On-the-Fly Decomposition of Specifications in Software Model Checking. In T. Zimmermann, J. Cleland-Huang, and Z. Su, editors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18), pages 349-361, 2016. ACM. doi:10.1145/2950290.2950349 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FSE16a, author = {Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer and Vitaly Mordan and Vadim Mutilin and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {On-the-Fly Decomposition of Specifications in Software Model Checking}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE~2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18)}, editor = {T.~Zimmermann and J.~Cleland-Huang and Z.~Su}, pages = {349-361}, year = {2016}, publisher = {ACM}, isbn = {978-3-319-47165-5}, doi = {10.1145/2950290.2950349}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-FSE.On-the-Fly_Decomposition_of_Specifications_in_Software_Model_Checking.pdf}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer. Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2016, Part 1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14), LNCS 9952, pages 874-880, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    Abstract
    Many of the current verification approaches can be classified into automatic and interactive techniques, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one of the current open problems is to design solutions to combine the two approaches and accelerate technology transfer. We outline four existing techniques that might be able to contribute to combination solutions: (1) Conditional model checking is a technique that gives detailed information (in form of a condition) about the verified state space, i.e., informs the user (or tools later in a tool chain) of the outcome. Also, it accepts as input detailed information (again as condition) about what the conditional model checker has to do. (2) Correctness witnesses, stored in a machine-readable exchange format, contain (partial) invariants that can be used to prove the correctness of a system. For example, tools that usually expect invariants from the user can read the invariants from such correctness witnesses and ask the user only for the remaining invariants. (3) Abstraction-refinement based approaches that use a dynamically adjustable precision (such as in lazy CEGAR approaches) can be provided with invariants from the user or from other tools, e.g., from deductive methods. This way, the approach can succeed in constructing a proof even if it was not able to come up with the required invariant. (4) The technique of path invariants extracts (in a CEGAR method) a path program that represents an interesting part of the program for which an invariant is needed. Such a path program can be given to an expensive (or interactive) method for computing invariants that can then be fed back to a CEGAR method to continue verifying the large program. While the existing techniques originate from software verification, we believe that the new combination ideas are useful for verifying general systems.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISOLA16b, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Partial Verification and Intermediate Results as a Solution to Combine Automatic and Interactive Verification Techniques}, booktitle = {7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2016, Part~1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {874-880}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9952}, publisher = {Springer}, isbn = {978-3-319-47165-5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Partial_Verification_and_Intermediate_Results_as_a_Solution_to_Combine_Automatic_and_Interactive_Verification_Techniques.pdf}, abstract = {Many of the current verification approaches can be classified into automatic and interactive techniques, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one of the current open problems is to design solutions to combine the two approaches and accelerate technology transfer. We outline four existing techniques that might be able to contribute to combination solutions: (1) Conditional model checking is a technique that gives detailed information (in form of a condition) about the verified state space, i.e., informs the user (or tools later in a tool chain) of the outcome. Also, it accepts as input detailed information (again as condition) about what the conditional model checker has to do. (2) Correctness witnesses, stored in a machine-readable exchange format, contain (partial) invariants that can be used to prove the correctness of a system. For example, tools that usually expect invariants from the user can read the invariants from such correctness witnesses and ask the user only for the remaining invariants. (3) Abstraction-refinement based approaches that use a dynamically adjustable precision (such as in lazy CEGAR approaches) can be provided with invariants from the user or from other tools, e.g., from deductive methods. This way, the approach can succeed in constructing a proof even if it was not able to come up with the required invariant. (4) The technique of path invariants extracts (in a CEGAR method) a path program that represents an interesting part of the program for which an invariant is needed. Such a path program can be given to an expensive (or interactive) method for computing invariants that can then be fed back to a CEGAR method to continue verifying the large program. While the existing techniques originate from software verification, we believe that the new combination ideas are useful for verifying general systems.}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
  5. Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger. Symbolic Execution with CEGAR. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2016, Part 1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14), LNCS 9952, pages 195-211, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_14 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Presentation Supplement
    Abstract
    Symbolic execution, a standard technique in program analysis, is a particularly successful and popular component in systems for test-case generation. One of the open research problems is that the approach suffers from the path-explosion problem. We apply abstraction to symbolic execution, and refine the abstract model using counterexampleguided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), a standard technique from model checking. We also use refinement selection with existing and new heuristics to influence the behavior and further improve the performance of our refinement procedure. We implemented our new technique in the open-source software-verification framework CPAchecker. Our experimental results show that the implementation is highly competitive.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISOLA16a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Symbolic Execution with {CEGAR}}, booktitle = {7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2016, Part~1, Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {195-211}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9952}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-symexec/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Symbolic_Execution_with_CEGAR.pdf}, presentation = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/prs/2016-10-10_ISoLA16_SymbolicExecutionWithCegar_Dirk.pdf}, abstract = {Symbolic execution, a standard technique in program analysis, is a particularly successful and popular component in systems for test-case generation. One of the open research problems is that the approach suffers from the path-explosion problem. We apply abstraction to symbolic execution, and refine the abstract model using counterexampleguided abstraction refinement (CEGAR), a standard technique from model checking. We also use refinement selection with existing and new heuristics to influence the behavior and further improve the performance of our refinement procedure. We implemented our new technique in the open-source software-verification framework CPAchecker. Our experimental results show that the implementation is highly competitive.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {<a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ISoLA.Symbolic_Execution_with_CEGAR.Errata.txt"> Errata</a> available.}, }
    Additional Infos
    Errata available.
  6. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. Verification-Aided Debugging: An Interactive Web-Service for Exploring Error Witnesses. In S. Chaudhuri and A. Farzan, editors, 28th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2016, Part 2, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23), LNCS 9780, pages 502-509, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_28 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Cloud-Based Software Verification, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CAV16, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {Verification-Aided Debugging: {A}n Interactive Web-Service for Exploring Error Witnesses}, booktitle = {28th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2016, Part~2, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-23)}, editor = {S.~Chaudhuri and A.~Farzan}, pages = {502-509}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9780}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_28}, sha256 = {89a353eace6233e10cd85e64b0c197209367d617b94c2d02766e922ea88c9e4c}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-CAV.Verification-Aided_Debugging_An_Interactive_Web-Service_for_Exploring_Error_Witnesses.pdf}, keyword = {Cloud-Based Software Verification,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer. Reliable and Reproducible Competition Results with BenchExec and Witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2016). In M. Chechik and J.-F. Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 887-904, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_55 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS16, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Reliable and Reproducible Competition Results with {{\sc BenchExec}} and Witnesses ({R}eport on {SV-COMP} 2016)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {M.~Chechik and J.-F.~Raskin}, pages = {887-904}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49674-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_55}, sha256 = {bc8f02d7c0651c1197977f13e77c1fcb22a5f85aadd96dc4aa59b454b199ed0e}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2016/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
  8. Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger. A Light-Weight Approach for Verifying Multi-Threaded Programs with CPAchecker. In J. Bouda, L. Holík, J. Kofroň, J. Strejček, and A. Rambousek, editors, Proceedings of the 11th Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS 2016, Telč, Czechia, October 21-23), EPTCS 233, pages 61-71, 2016. ArXiV. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.233.6 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{MEMICS16-Multi-Threaded, author = {Dirk Beyer and Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {A Light-Weight Approach for Verifying Multi-Threaded Programs with CPAchecker}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS~2016, Tel\v{c}, Czechia, October 21-23)}, editor = {J.~Bouda and L.~Hol\'ik and J.~Kofro\v{n} and J.~Strej\v{c}ek and A.~Rambousek}, pages = {61-71}, year = {2016}, series = {EPTCS~233}, publisher = {ArXiV}, doi = {10.4204/EPTCS.233.6}, sha256 = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-MEMICS.A_Light-Weight_Approach_for_Verifying_Multi-Threaded_Programs_with_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  9. Markus Schordan, Dirk Beyer, and Jonas Lundberg. Evaluation and Reproducibility of Program Analysis and Verification (Track Introduction). In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2016, Corfu, Greece, October 10-14), LNCS 9952, pages 191-194, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_13 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ISOLA16-TrackIntro, author = {Markus Schordan and Dirk Beyer and Jonas Lundberg}, title = {Evaluation and Reproducibility of Program Analysis and Verification (Track Introduction)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2016, Corfu, Greece, October 10--14)}, editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen}, pages = {191-194}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9952}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-47165-5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_13}, sha256 = {}, url = {}, }
  10. Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl. SMT-based Software Model Checking: An Experimental Comparison of Four Algorithms. In Proc. VSTTE, LNCS 9971, pages 181-198, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_14 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{VSTTE16b-AlgorithmComparison, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl}, title = {{SMT}-based Software Model Checking: {A}n Experimental Comparison of Four Algorithms}, booktitle = {Proc.\ VSTTE}, pages = {181--198}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9971}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_14}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/k-ind-compare/index-vstte.html}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-VSTTE.SMT-based_Software_Model_Checking_An_Experimental_Comparison_of_Four_Algorithms.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2018.complete.html#AlgorithmComparison-JAR">extended version</a> of this article appeared in JAR.}, }
    Additional Infos
    An extended version of this article appeared in JAR.
  11. Egor George Karpenkov, Karlheinz Friedberger, and Dirk Beyer. JavaSMT: A Unified Interface for SMT Solvers in Java. In Proc. VSTTE, LNCS 9971, pages 139-148, 2016. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_11 Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{VSTTE16a-JavaSMT, author = {Egor George Karpenkov and Karlheinz Friedberger and Dirk Beyer}, title = {{{\sc JavaSMT}}: {A} Unified Interface for {SMT} Solvers in {Java}}, booktitle = {Proc.\ VSTTE}, pages = {139--148}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9971}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_11}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://github.com/sosy-lab/java-smt/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-VSTTE.JavaSMT_A_Unified_Interface_For_SMT_Solvers_in_Java.pdf}, }
  12. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Andreas Stahlbauer. Verification Witnesses. In J. Knoop and U. Zdun, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, Österreich), LNI 252, pages 105-106, 2016. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE16b-VerificationWitnesses, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {Verification Witnesses}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, {\"O}sterreich)}, editor = {J.~Knoop and U.~Zdun}, pages = {105-106}, year = {2016}, series = {{LNI}~252}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.html#FSE15">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2015.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/746}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2015.
  13. Malte Lochau, Johannes Bürdek, Stefan Bauregger, Andreas Holzer, Alexander von Rhein, Sven Apel, and Dirk Beyer. On Facilitating Reuse in Multi-goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines. In J. Knoop and U. Zdun, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, Österreich), LNI 252, pages 81-82, 2016. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE16a-Test-SPL, author = {Malte Lochau and Johannes B{\"u}rdek and Stefan Bauregger and Andreas Holzer and Alexander von Rhein and Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer}, title = {On Facilitating Reuse in Multi-goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2016, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (23.-26. Februar 2016, Wien, {\"O}sterreich)}, editor = {J.~Knoop and U.~Zdun}, pages = {81-82}, year = {2016}, series = {{LNI}~252}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.html#FASE15">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2015.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/733}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2015.
  14. Gerhard Schellhorn, Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, and Wolfgang Reif. A relational encoding for a clash-free subset of ASMs. In Proc. of Alloy, ASM, B, TLA, VDM, and Z (ABZ), LNCS, pages 237-243, 2016. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:abz2016, author = {Gerhard Schellhorn and Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{A relational encoding for a clash-free subset of ASMs}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Alloy, ASM, B, TLA, VDM, and Z (ABZ)}, volume = {9675}, pages = {237--243}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2016-ABZ.A_Relational_Encoding_for_a_Clash-Free_Subset_of_ASMs.pdf}, }
  15. Egor George Karpenkov, David Monniaux, and Philipp Wendler. Program Analysis with Local Policy Iteration. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 17-19), LNCS 9583, pages 127-146, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_6 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    We present local policy iteration (LPI), a new algorithm for deriving numerical invariants that combines the precision of max-policy iteration with the flexibility and scalability of conventional Kleene iterations. It is defined in the Configurable Program Analysis (CPA) framework, thus allowing inter-analysis communication. LPI uses adjustable-block encoding in order to traverse loop-free program sections, possibly containing branching, without introducing extra abstraction. Our technique operates over any template linear constraint domain, including the interval and octagon domains; templates can also be derived from the program source. The implementation is evaluated on a set of benchmarks from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). It competes favorably with state-of-the-art analyzers.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{LPI, author = {Egor George Karpenkov and David Monniaux and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Program Analysis with Local Policy Iteration}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI~2016, St.~Petersburg, FL, USA, January 17-19)}, pages = {127--146}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9583}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_6}, sha256 = {}, url = {http://lpi.metaworld.me}, pdf = {https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03424}, abstract = {We present local policy iteration (LPI), a new algorithm for deriving numerical invariants that combines the precision of max-policy iteration with the flexibility and scalability of conventional Kleene iterations. It is defined in the Configurable Program Analysis (CPA) framework, thus allowing inter-analysis communication. LPI uses adjustable-block encoding in order to traverse loop-free program sections, possibly containing branching, without introducing extra abstraction. Our technique operates over any template linear constraint domain, including the interval and octagon domains; templates can also be derived from the program source. The implementation is evaluated on a set of benchmarks from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). It competes favorably with state-of-the-art analyzers.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  16. Karlheinz Friedberger. CPA-BAM: Block-Abstraction Memoization with Value Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution). In Marsha Chechik and Jean-François Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 912-915, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CPABAM-COMP16, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {{CPA-BAM}: Block-Abstraction Memoization with Value Analysis and Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {Marsha Chechik and Jean{-}Fran{\c{c}}ois Raskin}, pages = {912--915}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49673-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_58}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, }
  17. Stefan Löwe. CPA-RefSel: CPAchecker with Refinement Selection (Competition Contribution). In Marsha Chechik and Jean-François Raskin, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8), LNCS 9636, pages 916-919, 2016. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CPAREFSEL-COMP16, author = {Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {{CPA-RefSel}: {{\sc CPAchecker}} with Refinement Selection (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2-8)}, editor = {Marsha Chechik and Jean{-}Fran{\c{c}}ois Raskin}, pages = {916--919}, year = {2016}, series = {LNCS~9636}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-49673-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_59}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won category DeviceDriversLinux64 in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2016/">SV-COMP'16</a></span>}, }
    Additional Infos
    Won category DeviceDriversLinux64 in SV-COMP'16
  18. Gidon Ernst. A Verified POSIX-Compliant Flash File System-Modular Verification Technology & Crash Tolerance. PhD Thesis, Augsburg University, 2016. Link to this entry PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ernst:phd2016, author = {Gidon Ernst}, title = {A Verified {POSIX}-Compliant Flash File System---Modular Verification Technology \& Crash Tolerance}, year = {2016}, url = {https://isse.de/flashix}, pdf = {https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/files/3887/thesis_ernst.pdf}, howpublished = {PhD Thesis, Augsburg University}, }
  19. Thomas Stieglmaier. Augmenting Predicate Analysis with Auxiliary Invariants. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ThomasInvariants, author = {Thomas Stieglmaier}, title = {Augmenting Predicate Analysis with Auxiliary Invariants}, year = {2016}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/stieglmaier}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2016.Stieglmaier.Augmenting_Predicate_Analysis_with_Auxiliary_Invariants.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  20. Sebastian Ott. Implementing a Termination Analysis using Configurable Software Analysis. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SebastianTermination, author = {Sebastian Ott}, title = {Implementing a Termination Analysis using Configurable Software Analysis}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2016.Ott.Implementing_a_Termination_Analysis_using_Configurable_Program_Analysis.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  21. Stefan Weinzierl. Configurable Pointer-Alias Analysis in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{WeinzierlPointerAliasing, author = {Stefan Weinzierl}, title = {Configurable Pointer-Alias Analysis in {{\sc CPAchecker}}}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2016.Weinzierl.Configurable_Pointer-Alias_Analysis_for_CPAchecker.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  22. Maximilian Syri. Verification of Concurrent Programs by CFA Sequentialization. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{SyriConcurrency, author = {Maximilian Syri}, title = {Verification of Concurrent Programs by {CFA} Sequentialization}, year = {2016}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  23. Stephan Lukasczyk. Unbounded Heap Support for CPAchecker's Predicate Analysis Using SMT Arrays. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{LukasczykPredicateHeap, author = {Stephan Lukasczyk}, title = {Unbounded Heap Support for {{\sc CPAchecker}}'s Predicate Analysis Using {SMT} Arrays}, year = {2016}, url = {https://research.lukasczyk.me/heaparray/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  24. Magdalena Murr. Towards Understandable CPAchecker Counterexamples. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2016. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{MurrCounterexampleReport, author = {Magdalena Murr}, title = {Towards Understandable {{\sc CPAchecker}} Counterexamples}, year = {2016}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2016.Murr.Towards_Understandable_CPAchecker_Counterexamples.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, subject = {Mobile and Embedded Systems}, }

2015
  1. Gidon Ernst, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Wolfgang Reif. Verification of B+ trees by integration of shape analysis and interactive theorem proving. Software & Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 14(1):27-44, 2015. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:sosym2015, author = {Gidon Ernst and Gerhard Schellhorn and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{Verification of B+ trees by integration of shape analysis and interactive theorem proving}}, journal = {Software \& Systems Modeling (SoSyM)}, volume = {14}, number = {1}, pages = {27--44}, year = {2015}, publisher = {Springer}, }
  2. Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, Gerhard Schellhorn, Dominik Haneberg, and Wolfgang Reif. KIV-Overview and VerifyThis competition. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 17(6):677-694, 2015. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:sttt2015, author = {Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Gerhard Schellhorn and Dominik Haneberg and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{KIV---Overview and VerifyThis competition}}, journal = {Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {17}, number = {6}, pages = {677--694}, year = {2015}, publisher = {Springer}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, Daniel Dietsch, Matthias Heizmann, and Andreas Stahlbauer. Witness Validation and Stepwise Testification across Software Verifiers. In E. Di Nitto, M. Harman, and P. Heymans, editors, Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015, Bergamo, Italy, August 31 - September 4), pages 721-733, 2015. ACM, New York. doi:10.1145/2786805.2786867 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Ultimate, Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation, Witness-Based Validation (main) Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FSE15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Daniel Dietsch and Matthias Heizmann and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {Witness Validation and Stepwise Testification across Software Verifiers}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015, Bergamo, Italy, August 31 - September 4)}, editor = {E.~Di~Nitto and M.~Harman and P.~Heymans}, pages = {721-733}, year = {2015}, publisher = {ACM, New York}, isbn = {978-1-4503-3675-8}, doi = {10.1145/2786805.2786867}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-FSE.Witness_Validation_and_Stepwise_Testification_across_Software_Verifiers.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Ultimate,Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation,Witness-Based Validation (main)}, }
  4. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Refinement Selection. In B. Fischer and J. Geldenhuys, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN 2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26), LNCS 9232, pages 20-38, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_3 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a property-directed approach for the automatic construction of an abstract model for a given system. The approach learns information from infeasible error paths in order to refine the abstract model. We address the problem of selecting which information to learn from a given infeasible error path. In previous work, we presented a method that enables refinement selection by extracting a set of sliced prefixes from a given infeasible error path, each of which represents a different reason for infeasibility of the error path and thus, a possible way to refine the abstract model. In this work, we (1) define and investigate several promising heuristics for selecting an appropriate precision for refinement, and (2) propose a new combination of a value analysis and a predicate analysis that does not only find out which information to learn from an infeasible error path, but automatically decides which analysis should be preferred for a refinement. These contributions allow a more systematic refinement strategy for CEGAR-based analyses. We evaluated the idea on software verification. We provide an implementation of the new concepts in the verification framework CPAchecker and make it publicly available. In a thorough experimental study, we show that refinement selection often avoids state-space explosion where existing approaches diverge, and that it can be even more powerful if applied on a higher level, where it decides which analysis of a combination should be favored for a refinement.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SPIN15b, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Refinement Selection}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN~2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26)}, editor = {B.~Fischer and J.~Geldenhuys}, pages = {20-38}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9232}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-23403-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_3}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-SPIN.Refinement_Selection.pdf}, abstract = {Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a property-directed approach for the automatic construction of an abstract model for a given system. The approach learns information from infeasible error paths in order to refine the abstract model. We address the problem of selecting which information to learn from a given infeasible error path. In previous work, we presented a method that enables refinement selection by extracting a set of sliced prefixes from a given infeasible error path, each of which represents a different reason for infeasibility of the error path and thus, a possible way to refine the abstract model. In this work, we (1) define and investigate several promising heuristics for selecting an appropriate precision for refinement, and (2) propose a new combination of a value analysis and a predicate analysis that does not only find out which information to learn from an infeasible error path, but automatically decides which analysis should be preferred for a refinement. These contributions allow a more systematic refinement strategy for CEGAR-based analyses. We evaluated the idea on software verification. We provide an implementation of the new concepts in the verification framework CPAchecker and make it publicly available. In a thorough experimental study, we show that refinement selection often avoids state-space explosion where existing approaches diverge, and that it can be even more powerful if applied on a higher level, where it decides which analysis of a combination should be favored for a refinement.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  5. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Benchmarking and Resource Measurement. In B. Fischer and J. Geldenhuys, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN 2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26), LNCS 9232, pages 160-178, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_12 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Benchmarking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    Proper benchmarking and resource measurement is an important topic, because benchmarking is a widely-used method for the comparative evaluation of tools and algorithms in many research areas. It is essential for researchers, tool developers, and users, as well as for competitions. We formulate a set of requirements that are indispensable for reproducible benchmarking and reliable resource measurement of automatic solvers, verifiers, and similar tools, and discuss limitations of existing methods and benchmarking tools. Fulfilling these requirements in a benchmarking framework is complex and can (on Linux) currently only be done by using the cgroups feature of the kernel. We provide BenchExec, a ready-to-use, tool-independent, and free implementation of a benchmarking framework that fulfills all presented requirements, making reproducible benchmarking and reliable resource measurement easy. Our framework is able to work with a wide range of different tools and has proven its reliability and usefulness in the International Competition on Software Verification.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SPIN15a, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Benchmarking and Resource Measurement}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Model Checking of Software (SPIN~2015, Stellenbosch, South Africa, August 24-26)}, editor = {B.~Fischer and J.~Geldenhuys}, pages = {160-178}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9232}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-23403-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_12}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/benchmarking/}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-SPIN.Benchmarking_and_Resource_Measurement.pdf}, abstract = {Proper benchmarking and resource measurement is an important topic, because benchmarking is a widely-used method for the comparative evaluation of tools and algorithms in many research areas. It is essential for researchers, tool developers, and users, as well as for competitions. We formulate a set of requirements that are indispensable for reproducible benchmarking and reliable resource measurement of automatic solvers, verifiers, and similar tools, and discuss limitations of existing methods and benchmarking tools. Fulfilling these requirements in a benchmarking framework is complex and can (on Linux) currently only be done by using the cgroups feature of the kernel. We provide BenchExec, a ready-to-use, tool-independent, and free implementation of a benchmarking framework that fulfills all presented requirements, making reproducible benchmarking and reliable resource measurement easy. Our framework is able to work with a wide range of different tools and has proven its reliability and usefulness in the International Competition on Software Verification.}, keyword = {Benchmarking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2017.complete.html#Benchmarking-STTT">extended version</a> of this article appeared in STTT.}, }
    Additional Infos
    An extended version of this article appeared in STTT.
  6. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. Boosting k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants. In D. Kröning and C. S. Pasareanu, editors, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24), LNCS 9206, pages 622-640, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    k-Induction is a promising technique to extend bounded model checking from falsification to verification. In software verification, k-induction works only if auxiliary invariants are used to strengthen the induction hypothesis. The problem that we address is to generate such invariants (1) automatically without user-interaction, (2) efficiently such that little verification time is spent on the invariant generation, and (3) that are sufficiently strong for a k-induction proof. We boost the k-induction approach to significantly increase effectiveness and efficiency in the following way: We start in parallel to k-induction a data-flow-based invariant generator that supports dynamic precision adjustment and refine the precision of the invariant generator continuously during the analysis, such that the invariants become increasingly stronger. The k-induction engine is extended such that the invariants from the invariant generator are injected in each iteration to strengthen the hypothesis. The new method solves the above-mentioned problem because it (1) automatically chooses an invariant by step-wise refinement, (2) starts always with a lightweight invariant generation that is computationally inexpensive, and (3) refines the invariant precision more and more to inject stronger and stronger invariants into the induction system. We present and evaluate an implementation of our approach, as well as all other existing approaches, in the open-source verification-framework CPAchecker. Our experiments show that combining k-induction with continuously-refined invariants significantly increases effectiveness and efficiency, and outperforms all existing implementations of k-induction-based verification of C programs in terms of successful results.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CAV15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Boosting k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV~2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24)}, editor = {D.~Kr{\"o}ning and C.~S.~Pasareanu}, pages = {622-640}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9206}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-21689-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42}, sha256 = {beb169351523c85e417e028c4e32b47c2c29e5db2e7b29ef8f5a2230e9562216}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-k-induction/}, abstract = {k-Induction is a promising technique to extend bounded model checking from falsification to verification. In software verification, k-induction works only if auxiliary invariants are used to strengthen the induction hypothesis. The problem that we address is to generate such invariants (1) automatically without user-interaction, (2) efficiently such that little verification time is spent on the invariant generation, and (3) that are sufficiently strong for a k-induction proof. We boost the k-induction approach to significantly increase effectiveness and efficiency in the following way: We start in parallel to k-induction a data-flow-based invariant generator that supports dynamic precision adjustment and refine the precision of the invariant generator continuously during the analysis, such that the invariants become increasingly stronger. The k-induction engine is extended such that the invariants from the invariant generator are injected in each iteration to strengthen the hypothesis. The new method solves the above-mentioned problem because it (1) automatically chooses an invariant by step-wise refinement, (2) starts always with a lightweight invariant generation that is computationally inexpensive, and (3) refines the invariant precision more and more to inject stronger and stronger invariants into the induction system. We present and evaluate an implementation of our approach, as well as all other existing approaches, in the open-source verification-framework CPAchecker. Our experiments show that combining k-induction with continuously-refined invariants significantly increases effectiveness and efficiency, and outperforms all existing implementations of k-induction-based verification of C programs in terms of successful results.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  7. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Sliced Path Prefixes: An Effective Method to Enable Refinement Selection. In S. Graf and M. Viswanathan, editors, Proceedings of the 35th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems (FORTE 2015, Grenoble, France, June 2-4), LNCS 9039, pages 228-243, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19195-9_15 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    Automatic software verification relies on constructing, for a given program, an abstract model that is (1) abstract enough to avoid state-space explosion and (2) precise enough to reason about the specification. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a standard technique that suggests to extract information from infeasible error paths, in order to refine the abstract model if it is too imprecise. Existing approaches -including our previous work- do not choose the refinement for a given path systematically. We present a method that generates alternative refinements and allows to systematically choose a suited one. The method takes as input one given infeasible error path and applies a slicing technique to obtain a set of new error paths that are more abstract than the original error path but still infeasible, each for a different reason. The (more abstract) constraints of the new paths can be passed to a standard refinement procedure, in order to obtain a set of possible refinements, one for each new path. Our technique is completely independent from the abstract domain that is used in the program analysis, and does not rely on a certain proof technique, such as SMT solving. We implemented the new algorithm in the verification framework CPAchecker and made our extension publicly available. The experimental evaluation of our technique indicates that there is a wide range of possibilities on how to refine the abstract model for a given error path, and we demonstrate that the choice of which refinement to apply to the abstract model has a significant impact on the verification effectiveness and efficiency.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FORTE15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Sliced Path Prefixes: An Effective Method to Enable Refinement Selection}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 35th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems (FORTE~2015, Grenoble, France, June 2-4)}, editor = {S.~Graf and M.~Viswanathan}, pages = {228-243}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9039}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-319-19194-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-19195-9_15}, sha256 = {96e16841eb13a602455334a71a516f509ad1b1e2328edade3d5954062b387e7d}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/#FORTE15}, abstract = {Automatic software verification relies on constructing, for a given program, an abstract model that is (1) abstract enough to avoid state-space explosion and (2) precise enough to reason about the specification. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is a standard technique that suggests to extract information from infeasible error paths, in order to refine the abstract model if it is too imprecise. Existing approaches ---including our previous work--- do not choose the refinement for a given path systematically. We present a method that generates alternative refinements and allows to systematically choose a suited one. The method takes as input one given infeasible error path and applies a slicing technique to obtain a set of new error paths that are more abstract than the original error path but still infeasible, each for a different reason. The (more abstract) constraints of the new paths can be passed to a standard refinement procedure, in order to obtain a set of possible refinements, one for each new path. Our technique is completely independent from the abstract domain that is used in the program analysis, and does not rely on a certain proof technique, such as SMT solving. We implemented the new algorithm in the verification framework CPAchecker and made our extension publicly available. The experimental evaluation of our technique indicates that there is a wide range of possibilities on how to refine the abstract model for a given error path, and we demonstrate that the choice of which refinement to apply to the abstract model has a significant impact on the verification effectiveness and efficiency.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  8. Alexander von Rhein, Alexander Grebhahn, Sven Apel, Norbert Siegmund, Dirk Beyer, and Thorsten Berger. Presence-Condition Simplification in Highly Configurable Systems. In A. Bertolino, G. Canfora, and S. Elbaum, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24), pages 178-188, 2015. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2015.39 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ICSE15, author = {Alexander von Rhein and Alexander Grebhahn and Sven Apel and Norbert Siegmund and Dirk Beyer and Thorsten Berger}, title = {Presence-Condition Simplification in Highly Configurable Systems}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE~2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24)}, editor = {A.~Bertolino and G.~Canfora and S.~Elbaum}, pages = {178-188}, year = {2015}, publisher = {IEEE}, isbn = {978-1-4799-1934-5}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE.2015.39}, url = {}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-ICSE.Presence-Condition_Simplification_in_Highly_Configurable_Systems.pdf}, keyword = {Software Model Checking}, }
  9. Johannes Bürdek, Malte Lochau, Stefan Bauregger, Andreas Holzer, Alexander von Rhein, Sven Apel, and Dirk Beyer. Facilitating Reuse in Multi-Goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines. In A. Egyed and I. Schaefer, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2015, London, UK, April 13-15), LNCS 9033, pages 84-99, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_6 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Software Testing Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{FASE15, author = {Johannes B{\"u}rdek and Malte Lochau and Stefan Bauregger and Andreas Holzer and Alexander von Rhein and Sven Apel and Dirk Beyer}, title = {Facilitating Reuse in Multi-Goal Test-Suite Generation for Software Product Lines}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE~2015, London, UK, April 13-15)}, editor = {A.~Egyed and I.~Schaefer}, pages = {84-99}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9033}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46674-2}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_6}, sha256 = {fcd4d2f3155e3e061318a444f578c41c5e224a7c76e1bf161fe55cc7ae01ae86}, url = {http://forsyte.at/software/cpatiger/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking,Software Testing}, }
  10. Dirk Beyer. Software Verification and Verifiable Witnesses (Report on SV-COMP 2015). In C. Baier and C. Tinelli, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015, London, UK, April 13-17), LNCS 9035, pages 401-416, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_31 Link to this entry Keyword(s): Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report), Software Model Checking, Witness-Based Validation Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{TACAS15, author = {Dirk Beyer}, title = {Software Verification and Verifiable Witnesses (Report on {SV-COMP} 2015)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2015, London, UK, April 13-17)}, editor = {C.~Baier and C.~Tinelli}, pages = {401-416}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9035}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46680-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_31}, sha256 = {858448ee22256b3ed7f35603d81e942b58652f3b4d2660a22b858dc1c3ac16d0}, url = {https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2015/}, keyword = {Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP Report),Software Model Checking,Witness-Based Validation}, }
  11. Dirk Beyer and Stefan Löwe. Interpolation for Value Analysis. In U. Aßmann, B. Demuth, T. Spitta, G. Püschel, and R. Kaiser, editors, Tagungsband Software Engineering 2015, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (17. März - 20. März 2015, Dresden, Deutschland), LNI 239, pages 73-74, 2015. Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{SE15-ExplicitCEGAR, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"{o}}we}, title = {Interpolation for Value Analysis}, booktitle = {Tagungsband Software Engineering 2015, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (17. M{\"{a}}rz - 20. M{\"{a}}rz 2015, Dresden, Deutschland)}, editor = {U.~A{\ss}mann and B.~Demuth and T.~Spitta and G.~P{\"{u}}schel and R.~Kaiser}, pages = {73-74}, year = {2015}, series = {{LNI}~239}, publisher = {Gesellschaft f{\"{u}}r Informatik ({GI})}, url = {}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {This is a summary of a <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2013.html#FASE13">full article on this topic</a> that appeared in Proc. FASE 2013.}, doinone = {DOI not available}, urlpub = {https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/2495}, }
    Additional Infos
    This is a summary of a full article on this topic that appeared in Proc. FASE 2013.
  12. Yuyan Bao, Gary Leavens, and Gidon Ernst. Conditional effects in fine-grained region logic. In Proc. of Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP), 2015. ACM. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:ftfjp2015, author = {Yuyan Bao and Gary Leavens and Gidon Ernst}, title = {{Conditional effects in fine-grained region logic}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs (FTfJP)}, year = {2015}, publisher = {ACM}, }
  13. Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Wolfgang Reif. Inside a verified Flash file system: transactions & garbage collection. In Proc. of Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments (VSTTE), LNCS, pages 73-93, 2015. Springer. Link to this entry PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{ernst:vstte2015, author = {Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Gerhard Schellhorn and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{Inside a verified Flash file system: transactions \& garbage collection}}, booktitle = {Proc. of Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments (VSTTE)}, volume = {9593}, pages = {73--93}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS}, publisher = {Springer}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-VSTTE.Inside_a_Verified_Flash_File_System.pdf}, }
  14. Matthias Dangl, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. CPAchecker with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic (Competition Contribution). In C. Baier and C. Tinelli, editors, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015, London, UK, April 13-17), LNCS 9035, pages 423-425, 2015. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP), Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    Abstract
    We submit to SV-COMP'15 the software-verification framework CPAchecker. The submitted configuration is a combination of seven different analyses, based on explicit-value analysis, k-induction, predicate analysis, and concrete memory graphs. These analyses use concepts such as CEGAR, lazy abstraction, interpolation, adjustable-block encoding, bounded model checking, invariant generation, and block-abstraction memoization. Found counterexamples are cross-checked by a bit-precise analysis. The combination of several different analyses copes well with the diversity of the verification tasks in SV-COMP.
    BibTeX Entry
    @inproceedings{CPACHECKER-COMP15, author = {Matthias Dangl and Stefan L{\"{o}}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Support for Recursive Programs and Floating-Point Arithmetic (Competition Contribution)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS~2015, London, UK, April 13-17)}, editor = {C.~Baier and C.~Tinelli}, pages = {423--425}, year = {2015}, series = {LNCS~9035}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg}, isbn = {978-3-662-46680-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_34}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2015-TACAS.CPAchecker_with_Support_for_Recursive_Programs_and_Floating-Point_Arithmetic.pdf}, abstract = {We submit to SV-COMP'15 the software-verification framework CPAchecker. The submitted configuration is a combination of seven different analyses, based on explicit-value analysis, k-induction, predicate analysis, and concrete memory graphs. These analyses use concepts such as CEGAR, lazy abstraction, interpolation, adjustable-block encoding, bounded model checking, invariant generation, and block-abstraction memoization. Found counterexamples are cross-checked by a bit-precise analysis. The combination of several different analyses copes well with the diversity of the verification tasks in SV-COMP.}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP),Software Model Checking}, annote = {Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Overall, and received three silver and two bronze medals in <span style="white-space: nowrap"><a href="https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2015/">SV-COMP'15</a></span>}, }
    Additional Infos
    Won categories ControlFlow, MemorySafety, and Overall, and received three silver and two bronze medals in SV-COMP'15
  15. Dirk Beyer, Matthias Dangl, and Philipp Wendler. Combining k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants. Technical report MIP-1503, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), January 2015. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1502.00096 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TR1503-PA15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Matthias Dangl and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Combining k-Induction with Continuously-Refined Invariants}, number = {MIP-1503}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1502.00096}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-k-induction/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {An <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#CAV15">abbreviated version</a> of this article appeared in Proc. CAV 2015.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {January}, }
    Additional Infos
    An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Proc. CAV 2015.
  16. Dirk Beyer, Stefan Löwe, and Philipp Wendler. Domain-Type-Guided Refinement Selection Based on Sliced Path Prefixes. Technical report MIP-1501, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), January 2015. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1502.00045 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @techreport{TR1501-PA15, author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we and Philipp Wendler}, title = {Domain-Type-Guided Refinement Selection Based on Sliced Path Prefixes}, number = {MIP-1501}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.1502.00045}, url = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/cpa-ref-sel/}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, annote = {Extended publications based on this article appeared in <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#FORTE15">Proc. FORTE 2015</a> and <a href="https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bib/Year/2015.complete.html#SPIN15b">Proc. SPIN 2015</a>.}, institution = {Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)}, month = {January}, }
    Additional Infos
    Extended publications based on this article appeared in Proc. FORTE 2015 and Proc. SPIN 2015.
  17. BenchExec: Reliable Benchmarking and Resource Measurement. 2015. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Development Project Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{BenchExec, title = {{{\sc BenchExec}}: Reliable Benchmarking and Resource Measurement}, year = {2015}, url = {https://github.com/dbeyer/BenchExec}, keyword = {Software Development Project}, role = {Contributor}, }
  18. JavaSMT: A Unified Interface for SMT Solvers in Java. 2015. Link to this entry Keyword(s): Software Development Project, JavaSMT Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{JavaSMT, title = {{{\sc JavaSMT}}: A Unified Interface for {SMT} Solvers in {Java}}, year = {2015}, url = {https://github.com/sosy-lab/java-smt}, keyword = {Software Development Project,JavaSMT}, role = {Contributor}, }
  19. Karlheinz Friedberger. Block-Abstraction Memoization as an Approach to Verify Recursive Procedures. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2015. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{KarlheinzBAMRecursion, author = {Karlheinz Friedberger}, title = {Block-Abstraction Memoization as an Approach to Verify Recursive Procedures}, year = {2015}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/msc/2015.Friedberger.Block-Abstraction_Memoization_as_an_Approach_to_Verify_Recursive_Procedures.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }
  20. Thomas Lemberger. Efficient Symbolic Execution using CEGAR over Two Abstract Domains. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2015. Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking PDF
    BibTeX Entry
    @misc{ThomasSymbolicExecution, author = {Thomas Lemberger}, title = {Efficient Symbolic Execution using {CEGAR} over Two Abstract Domains}, year = {2015}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2015.Lemberger.Efficient_Symbolic_Execution_using_CEGAR_over_Two_Abstract_Domains.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, field = {Computer Science}, howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab}, }

2014
  1. Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer. BDD-Based Software Verification: Applications to Event-Condition-Action Systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 16(5):507-518, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{STTT14-BDD, author = {Dirk Beyer and Andreas Stahlbauer}, title = {{BDD}-Based Software Verification: Applications to Event-Condition-Action Systems}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {16}, number = {5}, pages = {507--518}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0334-1}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2014-STTT.BDD-Based_Software_Verification.pdf}, keyword = {CPAchecker,Software Model Checking}, }
  2. Falk Howar, Malte Isberner, Maik Merten, Bernhard Steffen, Dirk Beyer, and Corina S. Pasareanu. Rigorous examination of reactive systems: The RERS challenges 2012 and 2013. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 16(5):457-464, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10009-014-0337-y Link to this entry Publisher's Version PDF Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{STTT14-Intro, author = {Falk Howar and Malte Isberner and Maik Merten and Bernhard Steffen and Dirk Beyer and Corina S. Pasareanu}, title = {Rigorous examination of reactive systems: The {RERS} challenges 2012 and 2013}, journal = {International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)}, volume = {16}, number = {5}, pages = {457--464}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1007/s10009-014-0337-y}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-014-0337-y}, pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2014-STTT.Rigorous_Examination_of_Reactive_Systems.pdf}, }
  3. Dirk Beyer, Marieke Huisman, Vladimir Klebanov, and Rosemary Monahan. Evaluating Software Verification Systems: Benchmarks and Competitions (Dagstuhl Reports 14171). Dagstuhl Reports, 4(4):1-19, 2014. doi:10.4230/DagRep.4.4.1 Link to this entry Publisher's Version Supplement
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{Dagstuhl14, author = {Dirk Beyer and Marieke Huisman and Vladimir Klebanov and Rosemary Monahan}, title = {Evaluating Software Verification Systems: Benchmarks and Competitions (Dagstuhl Reports 14171)}, journal = {Dagstuhl Reports}, volume = {4}, number = {4}, pages = {1-19}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.4230/DagRep.4.4.1}, sha256 = {}, url = {https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.4.4.1}, }
  4. Bogdan Tofan, Gerhard Schellhorn, Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, and Wolfgang Reif. Compositional verification of a lock-free stack with RGITL. Electronic Communications of the Automated Verification of Critical Systems (EASST), 66, 2014. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:east2014, author = {Bogdan Tofan and Gerhard Schellhorn and Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{Compositional verification of a lock-free stack with RGITL}}, journal = {Electronic Communications of the Automated Verification of Critical Systems (EASST)}, volume = {66}, year = {2014}, }
  5. Gerhard Schellhorn, Bogdan Tofan, Gidon Ernst, Jörg Pfähler, and Wolfgang Reif. RGITL: A temporal logic framework for compositional reasoning about interleaved programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), 71:1-44, 2014. Springer. Link to this entry
    BibTeX Entry
    @article{ernst:amai2014, author = {Gerhard Schellhorn and Bogdan Tofan and Gidon Ernst and Jörg Pfähler and Wolfgang Reif}, title = {{RGITL: A temporal logic framework for compositional reasoning about interleaved programs}}, journal = {Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI)}, volume = {71}, pages = {1--44}, year = {2014}, publisher = {Springer}, issue = {1--3}, }
  6. Dirk Beyer, Georg Dresler, and Philipp Wendler. Software Verification in the Google App-Engine Cloud. In A. Biere and R. Bloem, editors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 18-22), LNCS 8559, pages 327-333, 2014. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_21 Link to this entry Keyword(s): CPAchecker, Software Model Checking, Cloud-Based Software Verification Publisher's Version PDF