Strengthening vs. Incremental Proof

Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CS256/Winter 2007 — Lecture #7 Zohar Manna 7-1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Strengthening vs. Incremental Proof Comparing the Strategies We want to prove 0 q , but q is not inductive. We have two options: 1 Strengthening Strengthen it to q ϕ . Prove 0 ( q ϕ ) and deduce 0 q . 2 Incremental First prove 0 ϕ and then prove 0 q relative to ϕ . Resulting verifcation conditions: 1 I1. Θ q ϕ I2. { q ϕ } T { q ϕ } 2 I1’. Θ ϕ I2’. { ϕ } T { ϕ } 0 ϕ I1”. Θ q I2”. { q ϕ } T { q } 0 q 7-2
Background image of page 2
Strengthening vs. Incremental Proof (Con’t) 1 is strictly more powerful than 2 . 2 implies 1 since ρ τ ϕ ϕ 0 | {z } I2’ ρ τ q ϕ q 0 | {z } I2” [ ρ τ q ϕ q 0 ϕ 0 | {z } I2 ] In practice, 2 is often more useful than 1 allows breaking down the proof in more manage- able pieces smaller veriFcation conditions more intuitive 7-3
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Strengthening vs. Incremental Proof (Con’t) Example: local x : integer where x = 1 0 : loop forever do h 1 : x := x + 1 i Show q 1 : at - 0 x > 0 q 2 : at - 1 x > 0 both are P -valid neither of them is inductive but q 1 q 2 is inductive! 7-4
Background image of page 4
Combining the Strategies Rule inc-inv : (incremental invariance) For assertions q , ϕ , χ 1 ,. . . , χ k I0. P q 0 χ 1 , . . . , 0 χ k I1. P q ( k ^ i =1 χ i ) ϕ q I2. P q Θ ϕ I3. P q n ( k ^ i =1 χ i ) ϕ o T { ϕ } P q 0 q If ϕ satis±es I2 and I3, we say that ϕ is inductive relative to χ 1 , . . . χ k 7-5
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Combining the Strategies (Con’t) Note that Θ must be stronger than all the χ i ’s (i.e., P q Θ χ i ) and so P q k ^ i =1 χ i Θ ϕ if P q Θ ϕ From now on, we usually omit “ P q ” and “ P q ”. 7-6
Background image of page 6
Detecting Trivial Verifcation Conditions { ϕ } T { ϕ } Don’t check every τ ∈ T . Ignore { ϕ } τ I { ϕ } always true Ignore { ϕ } τ { ϕ } if τ does not modify any variable in ϕ For { ϕ } τ { ϕ } where ϕ : p q ρ τ p q | {z } ϕ p 0 q 0 | {z } ϕ 0 Consider only τ ’s that validate p or falsify q 7-7
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Finding Inductive Assertions Two methods: 1. Bottom-up: based on the program text only algorithmic guaranteed to produce an inductive invariant 2. Top-down: guided by the property we want to prove heuristic not guaranteed to produce an inductive invariant 7-8
Background image of page 8
Finding Inductive Assertions Bottom-Up Approach Transition-validated assertions: 1
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 34

Strengthening vs. Incremental Proof - CS256/Winter 2007 -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online