Underapproximating predicate transformers

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4134 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 127-143

  Schmidt, David A ^a  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; APPROXIMATION THEORY; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

POWERDOMAINS; PREDICATE TRANSFORMERS; TEMPORAL LOGIC;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 33749866101     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11823230_9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. F. Bourdoncle. Abstract debugging of higher-order imperative languages, In Proc. ACM Conf. PLDI, pages 46-55, 2003.
2. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long. Model checking and abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(5):1512-1542, 1994.
3. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.A. Peled. Model Checking, MIT Press, 2000.
4. R. Cleaveland, P. Iyer, and D. Yankelevich. Optimality in abstractions of model checking. In Proc. SAS'95, LNCS 983. Springer, 1995.
5. P. Cousot. Méthodes itératives de construction et d'approximation de points fixes d'opérateurs monotones sur un treillis, analyse sémantique de programmes. PhD thesis, University of Grenoble, 1978.
6. P. Cousot and R. Cousot, Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs, In Proc. 4th ACM Symp. POPL, pages 238-252, 1977.
7. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In Proc. 6th ACM Symp. POPL, pages 269-282, 1979.
8. P. Cousot and R. Cousot, Temporal abstract interpretation, In Proc. 27th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 12-25. ACM Press, 2000.
9. D. Dams. Abstract interpretation and partition refinement for model checking. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 1996.
10. D. Darns, R. Gerth, and O. Grumberg. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Systems, 19:253-291, 1997.
11. D. Dams and K. Namjoshi. The existence of finite abstractions for branching time model checking. In Proc. IEEE Symp. LICS'04, pages 335-344, 2004.
12. D. Dams and K. Navnjoshi. Automata as abstractions. In Proc. VMCAI'05, LNCS 3385, pages 216-232. Springer-Verlag, 2005.
13. B.A. Davey and H.A Priestly. Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2d ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.
14. H. Fecher and M. Huth. Complete abstractions through extensions of disjunctive modal transition systems. Technical Report 0604, Institut für Informatik und Praktische Mathematik der Christian-Albrechts-Universitaet zu Kiel, 2005.
15. R. Giacobazzi and E. Quintarelli. Incompleteness, counterexamples, and refinements in abstract model checking. In Static Analysis Symposium, LNCS 2126, pages 356-373. Springer Verlag, 2001.
16. R. Giacobazzi and F. Ranzato. The reduced relative power operation on abstract domains. Theoretical Comp. Sci., 216:159-211, 1999.
17. R. Giacobazzi, F. Ranzato, and F. Scozzari. Making abstract, interpretations complete, J. ACM, 47:361-416, 2000.
18. R. Heckmann. Power domain constructions. PhD thesis, Univ. Saarbrücken, 1990.
19. K. Larsen. Proof systems for Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. In CAAP88, LNCS 299. Springer-Verlag, 1988.
20. K.G. Larsen and L. Xinxin. Equation solving using modal transition systems. In LICS'90, 1990.
21. C. Loiseaux, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, A. Bouajjani, and S. Densalem. Property preserving abstractions for verification of concurrent systems. Format Methods in System Design, 6:1-36, 1995.
22. D. Massé. Combining backward and forward analyses of temporal properties. In Proc. PADO'01, LNCS 2053, pages 155-172. Springer, 2001.
23. D. Massé. Property checking driven abstract interpretation-based static analysis. In Proc. VMCAI'03, LNCS 2575, pages 56-69, Springer, 2003.
24. G. Plotkin. Domains. Lecture notes, Univ. Pisa/Edinburgh, 1983.
25. F. Ranzato and F. Tapparo. Strong preservation as completeness in abstract, interpretation. In Proc. ESOP, LNCS 2986, pages 18-32. Springer, 2004.
26. F. Ranzato and F. Tapparo. An abstract interpretation-based refinement algorithm for strong preservation. In TACAS'05, LNCS 3440, pages 140-156. Springer, 2005.
27. F. Ranzato and F. Tapparo. Strong preservation of temporal fixpoint-based operators by abstract interpretation. In Proc. Conf. VMCAI'06, LNCS 3855, pages 332-347. Springer Verlag, 2006.
28. M. Sagiv, T. Reps, and R. Wilhelm. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM TOPLAS, 24:217-298, 2002.
29. D.A. Schmidt. Data-flow analysis is model checking of abstract interpretations. In Proc. 25th ACM Symp. on Principles of Prog. Languages. ACM Press, 1998.
30. D.A. Schmidt. Closed and logical relations for over- and under-approximation of powersets. In Proc. SAS'04, LNCS 3148, pages 22-37. Springer, 2004.
31. D.A. Schmidt. A calculus of logical relations for over- and underapproximating static analyses. Science of Computer Programming, in press.
32. S. Shoham and O. Grumberg. Monotonic abstraction refinement for CTL. In TACAS'04. Springer LNCS, 2004.
33. S. Shoham and O. Grumberg. 3-valued abstraction: More precision at less cost. In LICS'06, 2006.
34. B. Steffen. Generating data-flow analysis algorithms for modal specifications. Science of Computer Programming, 21:115-139, 1993.
35. B. Steffen, A. Classen, M. Klein, J. Knoop, and T. Margaria. The fixpoint analysis machine. In Proc. CONCUR'95, LNCS 962, pages 72-87. Springer, 1995.