Counterexample to induction-guided abstraction-refinement (CTIGAR)

43Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Typical CEGAR-based verification methods refine the abstract domain based on full counterexample traces. The finite state model checking algorithm IC3 introduced the concept of discovering, generalizing from, and thereby eliminating individual state counterexamples to induction (CTIs). This focus on individual states suggests a simpler abstraction-refinement scheme in which refinements are performed relative to single steps of the transition relation, thus reducing the expense of refinement and eliminating the need for full traces. Interestingly, this change in refinement focus leads to a natural spectrum of refinement options, including when to refine and which type of concrete single-step query to refine relative to. Experiments validate that CTI-focused abstraction refinement, or CTIGAR, is competitive with existing CEGAR-based tools. © 2014 Springer International Publishing.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Birgmeier, J., Bradley, A. R., & Weissenbacher, G. (2014). Counterexample to induction-guided abstraction-refinement (CTIGAR). In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 8559 LNCS, pp. 831–848). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_55

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free