Finding Feasible Abstract Counter-examples
Corina S. Păsăreanu, Matthew B. Dwyer, Willem Visser
Abstract
Corina S. Păsăreanu, Matthew B. Dwyer, Willem Visser
Abstract
A strength of model checking is its ability to automate the detection of subtle system errors and produce traces that exhibit those errors. Given the highcomputational cost of model checking most researchers advocate the use of aggressive property-preserving abstractions. Unfortunately, the more aggressively a system is abstracted the more infeasible behavior it will have. Thus, while abstraction enables efficient model checking it also threatens the usefulness of model checking as a defect detection tool, since it may be difficult to determine whether a counter-example is feasible and hence worth developer time to analyze. We have
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
A strength of model checking is its ability to automate the detection of subtle system errors and produce traces that exhibit those errors. Given the highcomputational cost of model checking most researchers advocate the use of aggressive property-preserving abstractions. Unfortunately, the more aggressively a system is abstracted the more infeasible behavior it will have. Thus, while abstraction enables efficient model checking it also threatens the usefulness of model checking as a defect detection tool, since it may be difficult to determine whether a counter-example is feasible and hence worth developer time to analyze. We have
Key concepts: Model checking, Computer science, Abstraction, Java, Abstraction model checking, Programming language, Property (philosophy), Counterexample