Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practical Aspects of Automated Deduction for Program Verification

  • Fachbeitrag
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software is vital for modern society. It is used in many safety- or security-critical applications, where a high degree of correctness is desirable. Over the last years, technologies for the formal specification and verification of software—using logic-based specification languages and automated deduction—have matured and can be expected to complement and partly replace traditional software engineering methods in the future. Program verification is an increasingly important application area for automated deduction. The field has outgrown the area of academic case studies, and industry is showing serious interest. This article describes the aspects of automated deduction that are important for program verification in practise, and it gives an overview of the reasoning mechanisms, the methodology, and the architecture of modern program verification systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahrendt W (2002) Deductive search for errors in free data type specifications using model generation. In: Voronkov A (ed) Proceedings of 18th international conference on automated deduction (CADE-18), Copenhagen, Denmark. LNCS, vol 2392. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrendt W, Beckert B, Hähnle R, Rümmer P, Schmitt PH (2007) Verifying object-oriented programs with KeY: a tutorial. In: de Boer F, Bonsangue M, Graf S, de Roever W (eds) Revised lectures. 5th international symposium on formal methods for components and objects (FMCO 2006), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. LNCS, vol 4709. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arts T, Giesl J (2000) Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor Comput Sci 236(1–2):133–178

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett M, Leino R, Schulte W (2005) The Spec# programming system: An overview. In: Construction and analysis of safe, secure, and interoperable smart devices (CASSIS). International workshop, 2004, Marseille, France, Revised Selected Papers. LNCS, vol 3362. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–69

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett C, Tinelli C (2007) CVC3. In: Damm W, Hermanns H (eds) Proceedings of 19th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV ’07). LNCS, vol 4590. Springer, Berlin, pp 298–302

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Beckert B, Hähnle R, Schmitt PH (eds) (2007) Verification of object-oriented software: the KeY approach. LNCS, vol 4334. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beckert B., Moskal M. (2010) Deductive verification of system software in the Verisoft XT project. KI (in this issue)

  8. Bertot Y (2008) A short presentation of Coq. In: Aït Mohamed O, Muñoz C, Tahar S (eds) Proceedings of 21st international conference on theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs), Montreal, Canada. LNCS, vol 5170. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bradley AR, Manna Z, Sipma HB (2005) Termination of polynomial programs. In: Cousot R (ed) VMCAI. LNCS, vol 3385. Springer, Berlin, pp 113–129

    Google Scholar 

  10. Claessen K, Sörensson N (2003) New techniques that improve MACE-style model finding. In: Proc of workshop on model computation (MODEL)

  11. de Moura L, Bjørner N (2008) Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Proceedings of the 14th international conference, Budapest, Hungary. LNCS, vol 4963. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–340

    Google Scholar 

  12. DeLine R, Leino KRM (2005) BoogiePL: a typed procedural language for checking object-oriented programs. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-70. Microsoft Research

  13. Dutertre B (2007) System description: Yices 1.0.10. In: SMT-COMP’07

  14. Falke S, Kapur D (2009) A term rewriting approach to the automated termination analysis of imperative programs. In: Schmidt RA (ed) CADE. LNCS, vol 5663. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–293

    Google Scholar 

  15. Filliâtre J-C, Marché C (2004) Multi-prover verification of C programs. In: Proceedings, formal methods and software engineering. LNCS, vol 3308. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Giese M (2001) Incremental closure of free variable tableaux. In: Proc intl joint conf on automated reasoning, Siena, Italy. LNCS, vol 2083. Springer, Berlin, pp 545–560

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harrison J (1996) HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Srivas MK, Camilleri AJ (eds) Proceedings, first international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), Palo Alto, USA. LNCS, vol 1166. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–269

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoare CAR (1969) An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun ACM 12(10):576–580, 583

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Ireland A, Kovács L (eds) (2009) WING 2009, Workshop on invariant generation

  20. Kaufmann M, Manolios P, Moore JS (2000) Computer-aided reasoning: an approach. Kluwer Academic, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  21. Klein G, Elphinstone K, Heiser G, Andronick J, Cock D, Derrin P, Elkaduwe D, Engelhardt K, Kolanski R, Norrish M, Sewell T, Tuch H, Winwood S (2009) seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM symposium on operating systems principles, Big Sky, MT, USA. ACM, October 2009

  22. Podelski A, Rybalchenko A (2004) A complete method for the synthesis of linear ranking functions. In: VMCAI. LNCS, vol 2937. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–251

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rümmer P (2007) A sequent calculus for integer arithmetic with counterexample generation. In: Proceedings, 4th international verification workshop (VERIFY’07). CEUR, vol 259 (http://ceur-ws.org/)

  24. Rümmer P, Shah MA (2007) Proving programs incorrect using a sequent calculus for Java dynamic logic. In: Gurevich Y, Meyer B (eds) Tests and proofs, first international conference, TAP 2007, Zurich, Switzerland, February 12–13, 2007. Revised papers. LNCS, vol 4454. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–60

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schulte W, Songtao X, Smans J, Piessens F (2007) A glimpse of a verifying C compiler. In: Proceedings, C/C++ Verification workshop

  26. Shankar N (2002) Little engines of proof. In: Proceedings, international symposium of formal methods Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. LNCS, vol 2391. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  27. Velroyen H, Rümmer P (2008) Non-termination checking for imperative programs. In: Beckert B, Hähnle R (eds) Tests and proofs, second international conference, TAP 2008, Prato, Italy. LNCS, vol 4966. Springer, Berlin, pp 154–170

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wenzel M, Paulson LC, Nipkow T (2008) The Isabelle framework. In: Mohamed OA, Muñoz C, Tahar S (eds) Proceedings of 21st international conference on theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs), Montreal, Canada. LNCS, vol 5170. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Rännvägen 6B, 41296, Göteborg, Schweden

    Wolfgang Ahrendt

  2. Department of Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Am Fasanengarten 5, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Bernhard Beckert

  3. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Postboks 1080 Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norwegen

    Martin Giese

  4. Computing Laboratory, Oxford University, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD, VK

    Philipp Rümmer

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Ahrendt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernhard Beckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Giese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philipp Rümmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Ahrendt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Giese, M. et al. Practical Aspects of Automated Deduction for Program Verification. Künstl Intell 24, 43–49 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-010-0001-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-010-0001-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation