Abstract
Interpolation-based model checking (ITP) [14] is an efficient and complete model checking procedure. However, for large problems, interpolants generated by ITP might become extremely large, rendering the procedure slow or even intractable.
In this work we present a novel technique for interpolant generation in the context of model checking. The main novelty of our work is that we generate small interpolants in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) using a twofold procedure: First we propose an algorithm that exploits resolution refutation properties to compute an interpolant approximation. Then we introduce an algorithm that takes advantage of inductive reasoning to turn the interpolant approximation into an interpolant. Unlike ITP, our approach maintains only the relevant subset of the resolution refutation. In addition, the second part of the procedure exploits the properties of the model checking problem at hand, in contrast to the general-purpose algorithm used in ITP.
We developed a new interpolation-based model checking algorithm, called CNF-ITP. Our algorithm takes advantage of the smaller interpolants and exploits the fact that the interpolants are given in CNF. We integrated our method into a SAT-based model checker and experimented with a representative subset of the HWMCC’12 benchmark set. Our experiments show that, overall, the interpolants generated by our method are 42 times smaller than those generated by ITP. Our CNF-ITP algorithm outperforms ITP, and at times solves problems that ITP cannot solve. We also compared CNF-ITP to the successful IC3 [3] algorithm. We found that CNF-ITP outperforms IC3 [3] in a large number of cases.
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
Bar-Ilan, O., Fuhrmann, O., Hoory, S., Shacham, O., Strichman, O.: Linear-time reductions of resolution proofs. In: Chockler, H., Hu, A.J. (eds.) HVC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5394, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149 (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)
Cabodi, G., Murciano, M., Nocco, S., Quer, S.: Stepping forward with interpolants in unbounded model checking. In: ICCAD, pp. 772–778 (2006)
Chockler, H., Ivrii, A., Matsliah, A.: Computing interpolants without proofs. In: HVC (2012)
Craig, W.: Linear reasoning. a new form of the herbrand-gentzen theorem. J. Symb. Log. 22(3) (1957)
Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)
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., Biere, A.: Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Verification of proofs of unsatisfiability for CNF formulas. In: DATE, pp. 886–891 (2003)
Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., McMillan, K.L.: Abstractions from proofs. In: POPL (2004)
Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Interpolant-based transition relation approximation. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Marques-Silva, J.: Interpolant learning and reuse in SAT-based model checking. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 174(3), 31–43 (2007)
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)
McMillan, K.L., Amla, N.: Automatic Abstraction without Counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Pudlák, P.: Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. J. Symb. Log. 62(3) (1997)
Rollini, S.F., Bruttomesso, R., Sharygina, N.: An efficient and flexible approach to resolution proof reduction. In: Raz, O. (ed.) HVC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6504, pp. 182–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Ryvchin, V., Strichman, O.: Faster extraction of high-level minimal unsatisfiable cores. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Vizel, Y., Grumberg, O.: Interpolation-sequence based model checking. In: FMCAD (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)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Extracting small unsatisfiable cores from unsatisfiable Boolean formula. In: SAT (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Vizel, Y., Ryvchin, V., Nadel, A. (2013). Efficient Generation of Small Interpolants in CNF. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds) Computer Aided Verification. CAV 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8044. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39798-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39799-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)