ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Constraint programming is a powerful paradigm for solving combinatorial search problems that draws on a wide range of techniques from artificial intelligence, computer science, databases, programming languages, and operations research. Constraint programming is currently applied with success to many domains, such as scheduling, planning, vehicle routing, configuration, networks, and bioinformatics.

The aim of this handbook is to capture the full breadth and depth of the constraint programming field and to be encyclopedic in its scope and coverage. While there are several excellent books on constraint programming, such books necessarily focus on the main notions and techniques and cannot cover also extensions, applications, and languages. The handbook gives a reasonably complete coverage of all these lines of work, based on constraint programming, so that a reader can have a rather precise idea of the whole field and its potential. Of course each line of work is dealt with in a survey-like style, where some details may be neglected in favor of coverage. However, the extensive bibliography of each chapter will help the interested readers to find suitable sources for the missing details. Each chapter of the handbook is intended to be a self-contained survey of a topic, and is written by one or more authors who are leading researchers in the area.

The intended audience of the handbook is researchers, graduate students, higher-year undergraduates and practitioners who wish to learn about the state-of-the-art in constraint programming. No prior knowledge about the field is necessary to be able to read the chapters and gather useful knowledge. Researchers from other fields should find in this handbook an effective way to learn about constraint programming and to possibly use some of the constraint programming concepts and techniques in their work, thus providing a means for a fruitful cross-fertilization among different research areas.

The handbook is organized in two parts. The first part covers the basic foundations of constraint programming, including the history, the notion of constraint propagation, basic search methods, global constraints, tractability and computational complexity, and important issues in modeling a problem as a constraint problem. The second part covers constraint languages and solver, several useful extensions to the basic framework (such as interval constraints, structured domains, and distributed CSPs), and successful application areas for constraint programming.

- Covers the whole field of constraint programming
- Survey-style chapters
- Five chapters on applications

Table of Contents

Foreword (Ugo Montanari) 
Part I : Foundations
Chapter 1. Introduction (Francesca Rossi, Peter van Beek, Toby Walsh) 
Chapter 2. Constraint Satisfaction: An Emerging Paradigm (Eugene C. Freuder, Alan K. Mackworth) 
Chapter 3. Constraint Propagation (Christian Bessiere) 
Chapter 4. Backtracking Search Algorithms (Peter van Beek) 
Chapter 5. Local Search Methods (Holger H. Hoos, Edward Tsang) 
Chapter 6. Global Constraints (Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Irit Katriel)
Chapter 7. Tractable Structures for CSPs (Rina Dechter)
Chapter 8. The Complexity of Constraint Languages
(David Cohen, Peter Jeavons) 
Chapter 9. Soft Constraints (Pedro Meseguer, Francesca Rossi, Thomas Schiex) 
Chapter 10. Symmetry in Constraint Programming
(Ian P. Gent, Karen E. Petrie, Jean-Francois Puget)
Chapter 11. Modelling (Barbara M. Smith) 
Part II : Extensions, Languages, and Applications

Chapter 12. Constraint Logic Programming (Kim Marriott, Peter J. Stuckey, Mark Wallace) 
Chapter 13. Constraints in Procedural and Concurrent Languages (Thom Fruehwirth, Laurent Michel, Christian Schulte)
Chapter 14. Finite Domain Constraint Programming Systems (Christian Schulte, Mats Carlsson) 
Chapter 15. Operations Research Methods in Constraint Programming (John Hooker) 
Chapter 16. Continuous and Interval Constraints(Frederic Benhamou, Laurent Granvilliers) 
Chapter 17. Constraints over Structured Domains
(Carmen Gervet) 
Chapter 18. Randomness and Structure (Carla Gomes, Toby Walsh)
Chapter 19. Temporal CSPs (Manolis Koubarakis)
Chapter 20. Distributed Constraint Programming
(Boi Faltings) 
Chapter 21. Uncertainty and Change (Kenneth N. Brown, Ian Miguel)
Chapter 22. Constraint-Based Scheduling and Planning
(Philippe Baptiste, Philippe Laborie, Claude Le Pape, Wim Nuijten)
Chapter 23. Vehicle Routing (Philip Kilby, Paul Shaw) 
Chapter 24. Configuration (Ulrich Junker)
Chapter 25. Constraint Applications in Networks
(Helmut Simonis)
Chapter 26. Bioinformatics and Constraints (Rolf Backofen, David Gilbert)

/pdf/handbook-of-constraint-programming-53srutguo2.pdf

Handbook of Constraint Programming

The main practical problem in model checking is the combinatorial explosion of system states commonly known as the state explosion problem. Abstraction methods attempt to reduce the size of the state space by employing knowledge about the system and the specification in order to model only relevant features in the Kripke structure. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement is an automatic abstraction method where, starting with a relatively small skeletal representation of the system to be verified, increasingly precise abstract representations of the system are computed. The key step is to extract information from false negatives ("spurious counterexamples") due to over-approximation.

/pdf/counterexample-guided-abstraction-refinement-1k2xqsetwo.pdf

Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement

This paper describes version 2 of the NuSMV tool. NuSMV is a symbolic model checker originated from the reengineering, reimplementation and extension of SMV, the original BDD-based model checker developed at CMU [15]. The NuSMV project aims at the development of a state-of-the-art symbolic model checker, designed to be applicable in technology transfer projects: it is a well structured, open, flexible and documented platform for model checking, and is robust and close to industrial systems standards [6].

NuSMV 2: An opensource tool for symbolic model checking

One approach to model checking software is based on the abstract-check-refine paradigm: build an abstract model, then check the desired property, and if the check fails, refine the model and start over. We introduce the concept of lazy abstraction to integrate and optimize the three phases of the abstract-check-refine loop. Lazy abstraction continuously builds and refines a single abstract model on demand, driven by the model checker, so that different parts of the model may exhibit different degrees of precision, namely just enough to verify the desired property. We present an algorithm for model checking safety properties using lazy abstraction and describe an implementation of the algorithm applied to C programs. We also provide sufficient conditions for the termination of the method.

Lazy abstraction

Symbolic model checking with Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) has been successfully used in the last decade for formally verifying finite state systems such as sequential circuits and protocols. Since its introduction in the beginning of the 90's, it has been integrated in the quality assurance process of several major hardware companies. The main bottleneck of this method is that BDDs may grow exponentially, and hence the amount of available memory re- stricts the size of circuits that can be verified efficiently. In this article we survey a technique called Bounded Model Checking (BMC), which uses a propositional SAT solver rather than BDD manipulation techniques. Since its introduction in 1999, BMC has been well received by the industry. It can find many logical er- rors in complex systems that can not be handled by competing techniques, and is therefore widely perceived as a complementary technique to BDD-based model checking. This observation is supported by several independent comparisons that have been published in the last few years.

/pdf/bounded-model-checking-13jwqb83un.pdf

Bounded Model Checking

A decision procedure is an algorithm that, given a decision problem, terminates with a correct yes/no answer. Here, the authors focus on theories that are expressive enough to model real problems, but are still decidable. Specifically, the book concentrates on decision procedures for first-order theories that are commonly used in automated verification and reasoning, theorem-proving, compiler optimization and operations research. The techniques described in the book draw from fields such as graph theory and logic, and are routinely used in industry. The authors introduce the basic terminology of satisfiability modulo theories and then, in separate chapters, study decision procedures for each of the following theories: propositional logic; equalities and uninterpreted functions; linear arithmetic; bit vectors; arrays; pointer logic; and quantified formulas.

Decision Procedures: An Algorithmic Point of View

In the event that a system does not satisfy a specification, a model checker will typically automatically produce a counterexample trace that shows a particular instance of the undesirable behavior. Unfortunately, the important steps that follow the discovery of a counterexample are generally not automated. The user must first decide if the counterexample shows genuinely erroneous behavior or is an artifact of improper specification or abstraction. In the event that the error is real, there remains the difficult task of understanding the error well enough to isolate and modify the faulty aspects of the system. This paper describes a (semi-)automated approach for assisting users in understanding and isolating errors in ANSI C programs. The approach, derived from Lewis’ counterfactual approach to causality, is based on distance metrics for program executions. Experimental results show that the power of the model checking engine can be used to provide assistance in understanding errors and to isolate faulty portions of the source code.

/pdf/error-explanation-with-distance-metrics-yt8e1foub7.pdf

Error explanation with distance metrics

We describe new techniques for model checking in the counterexample guided abstraction/refinement framework. The abstraction phase 'hides' the logic of various variables, hence considering them as inputs. This type of abstraction may lead to 'spurious' counterexamples, i.e. traces that can not be simulated on the original (concrete) machine. We check whether a counterexample is real or spurious with a SAT checker. We then use a combination of Integer Linear Programming (ILP) and machine learning techniques for refining the abstraction based on the counterexample. The process is repeated until either a real counterexample is found or the property is verified. We have implemented these techniques on top of the model checker NuSMV and the SAT solver Chaff. Experimental results prove the viability of these new techniques.

SAT based abstraction-refinement using ILP and machine learning techniques

We present a new decision procedure for finite-precision bitvector arithmetic with arbitrary bit-vector operations. Our procedure alternates between generating under- and over-approximations of the original bit-vector formula. An under-approximation is obtained by a translation to propositional logic in which some bit-vector variables are encoded with fewer Boolean variables than their width. If the under-approximation is unsatisfiable, we use the unsatisfiable core to derive an over-approximation based on the subset of predicates that participated in the proof of unsatisfiability. If this over-approximation is satisfiable, the satisfying assignment guides the refinement of the previous under-approximation by increasing, for some bit-vector variables, the number of Boolean variables that encode them. We present experimental results that suggest that this abstraction-based approach can be considerably more efficient than directly invoking the SAT solver on the original formula as well as other competing decision procedures.

/pdf/deciding-bit-vector-arithmetic-with-abstraction-33xwdn42ss.pdf

Ofer Strichman

Papers

Bounded Model Checking

Decision Procedures: An Algorithmic Point of View

Error explanation with distance metrics

SAT based abstraction-refinement using ILP and machine learning techniques

Deciding bit-vector arithmetic with abstraction