Abstract
Current SAT-based Model Checking is based on two major approaches: Interpolation-based (Imc) (global, with unrollings) and Property Directed Reachability/IC3 (Pdr) (local, without unrollings). Imc generates candidate invariants using interpolation over an unrolling of a system, without putting any restrictions on the SAT-solver’s search. Pdr generates candidate invariants by a local search over a single instantiation of the transition relation, effectively guiding the SAT solver’s search. The two techniques are considered to be orthogonal and have different strength and limitations. In this paper, we present a new technique, called Avy, that effectively combines the key insights of the two approaches. Like Imc, it uses unrollings and interpolants to construct an initial candidate invariant, and, like Pdr, it uses local inductive generalization to keep the invariants in compact clausal form. On the one hand, Avy is an incremental Imc extended with a local search for CNF interpolants. On the other, it is Pdr extended with a global search for bounded counterexamples. We implemented the technique using ABC and have evaluated it on the HWMCC benchmark-suite from 2012 and 2013. Our results show that the prototype significantly outperforms Pdr and McMillan’s interpolation algorithm (as implemented in ABC) on the industrial sub-category of the benchmark.
This material is based upon work funded and supported by the Department of Defense under Contract No. FA8721-05-C-0003 with Carnegie Mellon University for the operation of the Software Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Defense. This material has been approved for public release and unlimited distribution. DM-0001263.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Albarghouthi, A., Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Craig Interpretation. In: Miné, A., Schmidt, D. (eds.) SAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7460, pp. 300–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Albarghouthi, A., Gurfinkel, A., Li, Y., Chaki, S., Chechik, M.: Ufo: Verification with interpolants and abstract interpretation - (competition contribution). In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 637–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 117–148 (2003)
Bradley, A.R.: SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Brayton, R., Mishchenko, A.: Abc: An academic industrial-strength verification tool. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 24–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Cabodi, G., Nocco, S., Quer, S.: Interpolation sequences revisited. In: DATE, pp. 316–322. IEEE (2011)
Chockler, H., Ivrii, A., Matsliah, A.: Computing interpolants without proofs. In: Biere, A., Nahir, A., Vos, T. (eds.) HVC. LNCS, vol. 7857, pp. 72–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Craig, W.: Three Uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem in Relating Model Theory and Proof Theory. J. of Symbolic Logic 22(3), 269–285 (1957)
D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Purandare, M., Weissenbacher, G.: Interpolant strength. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Eén, N., Mishchenko, A., Brayton, R.K.: Efficient implementation of property directed reachability. In: Bjesse, P., Slobodová, A. (eds.) FMCAD, pp. 125–134. FMCAD Inc. (2011)
Hoder, K., Bjørner, N.: Generalized property directed reachability. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 157–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
McMillan, K.L.: Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Nadel, A.: Boosting minimal unsatisfiable core extraction. In: Bloem, R., Sharygina, N. (eds.) FMCAD, pp. 221–229. IEEE (2010)
Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O.: Interpolation-sequence based model checking. In: FMCAD, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)
Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O., Shoham, S.: Intertwined forward-backward reachability analysis using interpolants. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 308–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Vizel, Y., Ryvchin, V., Nadel, A.: Efficient generation of small interpolants in CNF. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 330–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Vizel, Y., Gurfinkel, A. (2014). Interpolating Property Directed Reachability. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds) Computer Aided Verification. CAV 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8559. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08866-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08867-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)