Publications of year 2012

Books and proceedings

  1. Dirk Beyer, Arie van Deursen, and Michael W. Godfrey, editors. Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2012. IEEE.
    @Proceedings{ICPC12,
    editor = {Dirk Beyer and Arie van Deursen and Michael W. Godfrey},
    title = {Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension},
    publisher = {IEEE},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {978-1-4673-1216-5},
    
    }
    

Articles in conference or workshop proceedings

  1. Dirk Beyer. Competition on Software Verification (SV-COMP). In C. Flanagan and B. König, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and of Analysis Systems (TACAS 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30), LNCS 7214, pages 504--524, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. [ Info ] [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    Abstract:
    This report describes the definitions, rules, setup, procedure, and results of the 1st International Competition on Software Verification. The verification community has performed competitions in various areas in the past, and SV-COMP'12 is the first competition of verification tools that take software programs as input and run a fully automatic verification of a given safety property. This year's competition is organized as a satellite event of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS).

    @InProceedings{TACAS12,
    author = {Dirk Beyer},
    title = {Competition on Software Verification ({SV-COMP})},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and of Analysis Systems (TACAS~2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30)},
    publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg},
    editor = {C.~Flanagan and B.~K{\"o}nig},
    series = {LNCS~7214},
    pages = {504--524},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-TACAS.Competition_on_Software_Verification.pdf},
    url = {http://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/},
    abstract = { This report describes the definitions, rules, setup, procedure, and results of the 1st International Competition on Software Verification. The verification community has performed competitions in various areas in the past, and SV-COMP'12 is the first competition of verification tools that take software programs as input and run a fully automatic verification of a given safety property. This year's competition is organized as a satellite event of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). },
    
    }
    

  2. Dirk Beyer, Thomas A. Henzinger, M. Erkan Keremoglu, and Philipp Wendler. Conditional Model Checking: A Technique to Pass Information between Verifiers. In Tevfik Bultan and Martin Robillard, editors, Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2012, Cary, NC, November 10-17), 2012. ACM. [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    Abstract:
    Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P ---usually a state predicate--- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P ---that is, as long as the program does not leave the states in which P is satisfied. In our experiments, we investigated as one major application of conditional model checking the sequential combination of model checkers with information passing. We give the condition that one model checker produces, as input to a second conditional model checker, such that the verification problem for the second is restricted to the part of the state space that is not covered by the condition, i.e., the second model checker works on the problems that the first model checker could not solve. Our experiments demonstrate that repeated application of conditional model checkers, passing information from one model checker to the next, can significantly improve the verification results and performance, i.e., we can now verify programs that we could not verify before.

    @InProceedings{FSE12,
    author = {Dirk Beyer and Thomas A. Henzinger and M. Erkan Keremoglu and Philipp Wendler},
    title = {Conditional Model Checking: {A} Technique to Pass Information between Verifiers},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE~2012, Cary, NC, November 10-17)},
    publisher = {ACM},
    editor = {Tevfik Bultan and Martin Robillard},
    pages = {},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {978-1-4503-1614-9},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-FSE.Conditional_Model_Checking.pdf},
    url = {},
    abstract = { Software model checking, as an undecidable problem, has three possible outcomes: (1) the program satisfies the specification, (2) the program does not satisfy the specification, and (3) the model checker fails. The third outcome usually manifests itself in a space-out, time-out, or one component of the verification tool giving up; in all of these failing cases, significant computation is performed by the verification tool before the failure, but no result is reported. We propose to reformulate the model-checking problem as follows, in order to have the verification tool report a summary of the performed work even in case of failure: given a program and a specification, the model checker returns a condition P ---usually a state predicate--- such that the program satisfies the specification under the condition P ---that is, as long as the program does not leave the states in which P is satisfied. In our experiments, we investigated as one major application of conditional model checking the sequential combination of model checkers with information passing. We give the condition that one model checker produces, as input to a second conditional model checker, such that the verification problem for the second is restricted to the part of the state space that is not covered by the condition, i.e., the second model checker works on the problems that the first model checker could not solve. Our experiments demonstrate that repeated application of conditional model checkers, passing information from one model checker to the next, can significantly improve the verification results and performance, i.e., we can now verify programs that we could not verify before. },
    
    }
    

  3. Dirk Beyer and Alexander K. Petrenko. Linux Driver Verification. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2012, Part II, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18), LNCS 7610, pages 1-6, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    @InProceedings{LDV12,
    author = {Dirk Beyer and Alexander K. Petrenko},
    title = {{Linux} Driver Verification},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2012, Part II, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18)},
    publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg},
    editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen},
    series = {LNCS~7610},
    pages = {1-6},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-ISOLA.Linux_Driver_Verification.pdf},
    url = {},
    
    }
    

  4. Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler. Algorithms for Software Model Checking: Predicate Abstraction vs. IMPACT. In Gianpiero Cabodi and Satnam Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD 2012, Cambrige, UK, October 22-25), pages 106-113, 2012. FMCAD. [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    Abstract:
    CEGAR, SMT solving, and Craig interpolation are successful approaches for software model checking. We compare two of the most important algorithms that are based on these techniques: lazy predicate abstraction (as in BLAST) and lazy abstraction with interpolants (as in IMPACT). We unify the algorithms formally (by expressing both in the CPA framework) as well as in practice (by implementing them in the same tool). This allows us to flexibly experiment with new configurations and gain new insights, both about their most important differences and commonalities, as well as about their performance characteristics. We show that the essential contribution of the IMPACT algorithm is the reduction of the number of refinements, and compare this to another approach for reducing refinement effort: adjustable-block encoding (ABE).

    @InProceedings{FMCAD12,
    author = {Dirk Beyer and Philipp Wendler},
    title = {Algorithms for Software Model Checking: Predicate Abstraction vs. {IMPACT}},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD~2012, Cambrige, UK, October 22-25)},
    publisher = {FMCAD},
    editor = {Gianpiero Cabodi and Satnam Singh},
    pages = {106-113},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {978-1-4673-4831-7},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-FMCAD.Algorithms_for_Software_Model_Checking.pdf},
    url = {},
    abstract = { CEGAR, SMT solving, and Craig interpolation are successful approaches for software model checking. We compare two of the most important algorithms that are based on these techniques: lazy predicate abstraction (as in BLAST) and lazy abstraction with interpolants (as in IMPACT). We unify the algorithms formally (by expressing both in the CPA framework) as well as in practice (by implementing them in the same tool). This allows us to flexibly experiment with new configurations and gain new insights, both about their most important differences and commonalities, as well as about their performance characteristics. We show that the essential contribution of the IMPACT algorithm is the reduction of the number of refinements, and compare this to another approach for reducing refinement effort: adjustable-block encoding (ABE). },
    
    }
    

  5. Falk Howar, Malte Isberner, Maik Merten, Bernhard Steffen, and Dirk Beyer. The RERS Grey-Box Challenge 2012: Analysis of Event-Condition-Action Systems. In T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA 2012, Part I, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18), LNCS 7609, pages 608-614, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    @InProceedings{RERS12,
    author = {Falk Howar and Malte Isberner and Maik Merten and Bernhard Steffen and Dirk Beyer},
    title = {The {RERS} Grey-Box Challenge 2012: Analysis of Event-Condition-Action Systems},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Validation (ISoLA~2012, Part I, Heraklion, Crete, October 15-18)},
    publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg},
    editor = {T.~Margaria and B.~Steffen},
    series = {LNCS~7609},
    pages = {608-614},
    year = {2012},
    isbn = {},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-ISOLA.The_RERS_Grey-Box_Challenge_2012_Analysis_of_Event-Condition-Action_Systems.pdf},
    url = {},
    
    }
    

  6. S. Löwe and P. Wendler. CPAchecker with Adjustable Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution). In C. Flanagan and B. König, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and of Analysis Systems (TACAS 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30), LNCS 7214, pages 528--530, 2012. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. [ Info ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    @inproceedings{CPACHECKERABE-COMP12,
    author = {S.~L{\"{o}}we and P.~Wendler},
    title = {{{\sc CPAchecker}} with Adjustable Predicate Analysis (Competition Contribution)},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and of Analysis Systems (TACAS~2012, Tallinn, Estonia, March 27-30)},
    editor = {C.~Flanagan and B.~K{\"o}nig},
    series = {LNCS~7214},
    pages = {528--530},
    year = {2012},
    publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_40},
    doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_40},
    
    }
    

Internal reports

  1. Dirk Beyer and Stefan Löwe. Explicit-Value Analysis Based on CEGAR and Interpolation. Technical report MIP-1205, Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA), December 2012. [ PDF ] Keyword(s): Software Model Checking.
    Annotation:
    Online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6542

    @TechReport{TR1205-PA12,
    author = {Dirk Beyer and Stefan L{\"o}we},
    title = {Explicit-Value Analysis Based on {CEGAR} and Interpolation},
    institution ={Department of Computer Science and Mathematics (FIM), University of Passau (PA)},
    number = {MIP-1205},
    month = {December},
    year = {2012},
    keyword = {Software Model Checking},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2012-PA-TR1205.Explicit-Value_Analysis_Based_on_CEGAR_and_Interpolation.pdf},
    url = {},
    abstract = {},
    annote = {Online:  http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6542 
    }, }

Theses (PhD, MSc, BSc, Project)

  1. Alexander Driemeyer. Software-Verifikation von Java-Programmen in CPAchecker. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012.
    @misc{DriemeyerJava,
    author = {Alexander Driemeyer},
    title = {Software-Verifikation von Java-Programmen in CPAchecker},
    howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab},
    year = {2012},
    field = {Computer Science},
    
    }
    

  2. Karlheinz Friedberger. Ein typbasierter Ansatz zur Kombination verschiedener Verifikationstechniken. Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012. [ PDF ]
    @misc{KarlheinzDomainTypes,
    author = {Karlheinz Friedberger},
    title = {Ein typbasierter Ansatz zur Kombination verschiedener Verifikationstechniken},
    howpublished = {Bachelor's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab},
    year = {2012},
    pdf = {https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/bsc/2012.Friedberger.Ein_typbasierter_Ansatz_zur_Kombination_verschiedener_Verifikationstechniken.pdf},
    field = {Computer Science},
    
    }
    

  3. Christopher Jahn. Implementation of a CFA and ARG Visualization and Navigation Tool in Java. Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab, 2012.
    @misc{JahnVisualization,
    author = {Christopher Jahn},
    title = {Implementation of a {CFA} and {ARG} Visualization and Navigation Tool in Java},
    howpublished = {Master's Thesis, University of Passau, Software Systems Lab},
    year = {2012},
    
    }
    




Disclaimer:

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All person copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.




Last modified: Mon Dec 18 14:34:44 2017


This document was translated from BibTEX by bibtex2html