Verification Coverage

June 12, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Rodrigo CastaΓ±o, Victor Braberman, Diego Garbervetsky, Sebastian Uchitel arXiv ID 1706.03796 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 0 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Software Model Checkers have shown outstanding performance improvements in recent times. Moreover, for specific use cases, formal verification techniques have shown to be highly effective, leading to a number of high-profile success stories. However, widespread adoption remains unlikely in the short term and one of the remaining obstacles in that direction is the vast number of instances which software model checkers cannot fully analyze within reasonable memory and CPU bounds. The majority of verification tools fail to provide a measure of progress or any intermediate verification result when such situations occur. Inspired in the success that coverage metrics have achieved in industry, we propose to adapt the definition of coverage to the context of verification. We discuss some of the challenges in pinning down a definition that resembles the deeply rooted semantics of test coverage. Subsequently we propose a definition for a broad family of verification techniques: those based on Abstract Reachability Trees. Moreover, we discuss a general approach to computing an under-approximation of such metric and a specific heuristic to improve the performance. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation to assess the viability of our approach.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted