Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAkira Littleford Modified over 4 years ago

1
1 Abstraction (Cont’d) Defining an Abstract Domain variable elimination, data abstraction, predicate abstraction Abstraction for Universal/Existential Properties over- and under-approximations Abstraction for Mixed Properties 3-valued abstraction Overlapping Abstract Domains Belnap (4-valued) abstraction

2
2 Recall: Defining an Abstract Domain Abstraction : S→S’ S S’ γγγ γγ Concretization γ : S’→2 S

3
3 Abstract Kripke Structure Abstract interpretation of atomic propositions I ’(a, p) = true iff forall s in (a), I (s, p) = true I ’(a, p) = false iff forall s in (a), I (s, p) = false Abstract Transition Relation (2 choices) Over-Approximation (Existential) Make a transition from an abstract state if at least one corresponding concrete state has the transition. Under-Approximation (Universal) Make a transition from an abstract state if all the corresponding concrete states have the transition.

4
4 Which abstraction to use? Property Type Expected Result Abstraction to use Universal (ACTL, LTL) TrueOver- FalseUnder- Existential (ECTL) TrueUnder- FalseOver- But what about mixed properties?!

5
5 3-Valued Kleene Logic Information Ordering ⊥ f t true false unknown t ⋀ ⊥ = ⊥ t ⋁ ⊥ = t ¬ t = f ¬ ⊥ = ⊥ Truth Ordering ⊥ f t

6
6 3-Valued Kripke Structures p = t q = f p = f q = f p = t q = ⊥ t f ⊥ Kripke structures extended to 3- valued logic Propositions can be True, False, or Unknown Transitions possible: ⊥ necessary and possible: t impossible: f s0s0 s2s2 s1s1 ⊥ t ⊥

7
7 3-Valued Abstraction p pqpq t f ⊥ p pqpq over-approximation under-approximation p pqpq 3-Valued Abstraction

8
8 Example Revisited (3-Val Abstraction) I I ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ t t t t

9
9 Model-Checking with 3 Values Usual semantics of temporal operators BUT connectives ⋀ ⋁ ¬ are interpreted in 3-Valued Logic t f ⊥ ( EX ¬p )(s 0 ) = t (EX q)(s 0 ) = ⊥ (EX ¬ p ⋀ q)(s 0 ) = f Examples s0s0 s2s2 s1s1 p pqpq (EX p)(s) = ⋁ t R(s,t) ⋀ p(t)

10
10 Preservation via 3-Valued Abstraction Let φ be a temporal formula (CTL) Let K’ be a 3-valued abstraction of K Preservation Theorem Abstract MC Result Concrete Information True K ⊨ φ False K ⊨ ¬φ Maybe K ⊨ φ or K ⊨ ¬φ Preserves truth and falsity of arbitrary properties! no information

11
11 Abstraction (Outline) Defining an Abstract Domain variable elimination, data abstraction, predicate abstraction Abstraction for Universal/Existential Properties over- and under-approximations Abstraction for Mixed Properties 3-valued abstraction Overlapping Abstract Domains Belnap (4-valued) abstraction

12
12 Example: Coarse Abstract Domain s0s0 s1s1 s2s2 pqpq q s3s3 a0a0 a1a1 Over-ApproximationUnder-Approximation p? q a0a0 a1a1 p? q a0a0 a1a1 AX (p ⋁ ¬ p) is inconclusive EX (q) is true Goal: make AX conclusive as well, via domain refinement

13
13 Example: Refined Abstract Domain s0s0 s1s1 s2s2 pqpq q s3s3 a0a0 Over-ApproximationUnder-Approximation AX (p ⋁ ¬ p) is true EX (q) is inconclusive a2a2 a3a3 pqpq a0a0 a2a2 q a3a3 pqpq a0a0 a2a2 q a3a3 Partitioned domain does not work! Need an overlapping abstract domain!!!

14
14 Example: Overlapping Abstract Domain s0s0 s1s1 s2s2 pqpq q s3s3 a0a0 Over-ApproximationUnder-Approximation AX (p ⋁ ¬ p) is true EX (q) is true a2a2 a3a3 a1a1 pqpq a0a0 a2a2 q a3a3 p? q a1a1 pqpq a0a0 a2a2 q a3a3 p? q a1a1

15
15 Supporting Overlapping Abstract Domains Goal as before, want to combine over- and under- approximations to support analysis of mixed properties Problem 3-valued logic is no longer sufficient need to deal with 4 types of transitions over-, under-, both over- and under-, and neither i.e., under-approx is no longer a subset of over-approx Solution use 4-valued Belnap logic

16
16 Belnap Logic Information Ordering ⊤ ⊥ f t true false unknown inconsistent t ⋀ ⊥ = ⊥ t ⋁ ⊥ = t ¬ t = f ¬ ⊥ = ⊥ Truth Ordering ⊤⊥ f t

17
17 Belnap Kripke Structures f ⊥⊤ Kripke structures extended to Belnap logic Propositions True, False, or Unknown Transitions only under-approximation: ⊤ only over-approximation: ⊥ both over- and under-: t neither: f p = t q = f p = f q = f p = t q = ⊥ p = t q = t t ⊥ ⊥ ⊤

18
18 Belnap Kripke Structures p p q? pqpq t f ⊥⊤ p pqpq p p q? Over-approximation Under-approximation

19
19 Overview of Model Checking Yes/No Answer Yes/No Answer SW/HW artifact SW/HW artifact Correctness properties Correctness properties Temporal logic Temporal logic Model of System Model of System Model Extraction Model Extraction Translation Model Checker Model Checker Correct? [CDEG03]

20
20 Yes/No Answer Yes/No Answer SW/HW artifact SW/HW artifact Correctness properties Correctness properties Temporal logic Temporal logic Model of System Model of System Model Extraction Model Extraction Translation Model Checker Model Checker MV-Logic Answer MV-Logic Answer MV-Model Checker MV-Model Checker How correct? [CDEG03] Overview of MV-Model Checking

21
21 Preservation via Belnap Abstraction Let φ be a temporal formula (CTL) Let K’ be a Belnap abstraction of K Preservation Theorem Abstract MC Result Concrete Information True K ⊨ φ False K ⊨ ¬φ ⊥ K ⊨ φ or K ⊨ ¬φ ⊤ K ⊨ φ and K ⊨ ¬φ Preserves truth and falsity of arbitrary properties! Not possible for a sound abstraction

22
22 Summary Abstraction is the key to scaling up 1.Choose an abstract domain Variable elimination, data abstraction, predicate abstraction, … 2.Choose a type of abstraction Over-, Under-, 3Val, Belnap 3.Build an abstract model ($$$$$) 4.Model-check the property on the abstract model 5.If the result is conclusive, STOP 6.Otherwise, pick a new abstract domain, REPEAT

23
23 References [DGG97] D. Dams, R. Gerth, and O. Grumberg, “Abstract Interpretation of Reactive Systems”. In TOPLAS, No. 19, Vol. 2, pp. 253-291, 1997. [CDEG03] M. Chechik, B. Devereux, S. Easterbrook, and A. Gurfinkel, “Multi-Valued Symbolic Model-Checking”. In TOSEM, No. 4, Vol. 12, pp. 1-38, 2003.

24
24 Acknowledgements These slides are based on the tutorial “Model- Checking: From Software to Hardware” given by Marsha Chechik and Arie Gurfinkel at Formal Methods 2006.

Similar presentations

OK

GG Consulting, LLC I-SUITE. Source: TEA SHARS Frequently asked questions 2.

GG Consulting, LLC I-SUITE. Source: TEA SHARS Frequently asked questions 2.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google