Feedback-driven dynamic invariant discovery

2014 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2014 - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 362-372

  Zhang, Lingming ^a   Yang, Guowei ^b   Rungta, Neha ^c   Person, Suzette ^d   Khurshid, Sarfraz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^d NASA Langley Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Invariant generation; Model checking; Symbolic execution

Indexed keywords

MODEL CHECKING;

DYNAMIC INVARIANTS; INVARIANT GENERATIONS; NUMBER OF ITERATIONS; PROGRAM INVARIANTS; PROGRAM PROPERTIES; SOFTWARE DEVELOPER; SYMBOLIC EXECUTION; SYMBOLIC STATE SPACE;

SOFTWARE TESTING;

EID: 84908616981     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2610384.2610389     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. A. Baliga, V. Ganapathy, and L. Iftode. Automatic inference and enforcement of kernel data structure invariants. In ACSAC, pages 77-86, 2008.
2. N. Bjørner, A. Browne, and Z. Manna. Automatic generation of invariants and intermediate assertions. Theor. Comput. Sci., 173(1):49-87, Feb. 1997.
3. V. Braberman, F. Fernandez, D. Garbervetsky, and S. Yovine. Parametric prediction of heap memory requirements. In ISMM, pages 141-150, 2008.
4. C. Cadar, D. Dunbar, and D. R. Engler. Klee: Unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In OSDI, volume 8, pages 209-224, 2008.
5. B.-Y. E. Chang and K. R. M. Leino. Abstract interpretation with alien expressions and heap structures. In VMCAI, pages 147-163, 2005.
6. L. A. Clarke. A program testing system. In Proceedings of the 1976 annual conference, ACM '76, pages 488-491, 1976.
7. P. Corporation. Jtest manuals version 4.5 october 23 (2002). http://www.parasoft.com/2002.
8. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In POPL, pages 238-252, 1977.
9. C. Csallner, N. Tillmann, and Y. Smaragdakis. DySy: Dynamic symbolic execution for invariant inference. In ICSE, pages 281-290, 2008.
10. D. D. Dunlop and V. R. Basili. A heuristic for deriving loop functions. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 10(3):275-285, May 1984.
11. M. D. Ernst. Dynamically discovering likely program invariants. PhD thesis, University of Washington, 2000.
12. M. D. Ernst, J. H. Perkins, P. J. Guo, S. McCamant, C. Pacheco, M. S. Tschantz, and C. Xiao. The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Sci. Comput. Program., 69(1-3):35-45, 2007.
13. C. Flanagan and K. R. M. Leino. Houdini, an annotation assistant for ESC/Java. In FME, pages 500-517, 2001.
14. C. Flanagan, K. R. M. Leino, M. Lillibridge, G. Nelson, J. B. Saxe, and R. Stata. Extended static checking for Java. In PLDI, pages 234-245, 2002.
15. S. M. German and B. Wegbreit. A synthesizer of inductive assertions. In AFIPS, pages 369-376, 1975.
16. S. Hangal and M. S. Lam. Tracking down software bugs using automatic anomaly detection. In ICSE, pages 291-301, 2002.
17. F. Howar, D. Giannakopoulou, and Z. Rakamariffc. Hybrid learning: Interface generation through static, dynamic, and symbolic analysis. In ISSTA, pages 268-279, 2013.
18. S. Katz and Z. Manna. Logical analysis of programs. Commun. ACM, 19(4):188-206, Apr. 1976.
19. J. C. King. Symbolic execution and program testing. CACM, 19(7):385-394, 1976.
20. G. T. Leavens, Y. Cheon, C. Clifton, C. Ruby, and D. R. Cok. How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. Sci. Comput. Program., 55(1-3):185-208, Mar. 2005.
21. K. Li, C. Reichenbach, Y. Smaragdakis, and M. Young. Second-order constraints in dynamic invariant inference. In ESEC/FSE 2013, pages 103-113, 2013.
22. F. Logozzo. Automatic inference of class invariants. In VMCAI, pages 211-222, 2004.
23. M. Z. Malik, A. Pervaiz, and S. Khurshid. Generating representation invariants of structurally complex data. In TACAS, pages 34-49, 2007.
24. B. Meyer, J.-M. Nerson, and M. Matsuo. Eifiel: Object-oriented design for software engineering. In ESEC, pages 221-229, 1987.
25. J. W. Nimmer and M. D. Ernst. Static verification of dynamically detected program invariants: Integrating Daikon and ESC/Java. In RV, 2001.
26. C. S. Pasareanu and N. Rungta. Symbolic Pathfinder: symbolic execution of Java bytecode. In ASE, pages 179-180, 2010.
27. C. S. Pasareanu and W. Visser. Verification of Java programs using symbolic execution and invariant generation. In SPIN, pages 164-181, 2004.
28. N. Polikarpova, I. Ciupa, and B. Meyer. A comparative study of programmer-written and automatically inferred contracts. In ISSTA, pages 93-104, 2009.
29. SAE-ARP4761. Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment. SAE International, December 1996.
30. SIR. Software-artifact infrastructure repository: Home. http://sir.unl.edu, 2008.
31. M. Staats, S. Hong, M. Kim, and G. Rothermel. Understanding user understanding: Determining correctness of generated program invariants. In ISSTA, pages 188-198, 2012.
32. N. Tillmann, F. Chen, and W. Schulte. Discovering likely method specifications. In ICFEM, pages 717-736, 2006.
33. W. Visser, J. Geldenhuys, and M. B. Dwyer. Green: reducing, reusing and recycling constraints in program analysis. In FSE, page 58, 2012.
34. B. Wegbreit. The synthesis of loop predicates. Commun. ACM, 17(2):102-113, Feb. 1974.
35. T. Xie and D. Notkin. Mutually enhancing test generation and specification inference. In In Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Testing of Software, pages 60-69, 2003.
36. G. Yang, S. Khurshid, S. Person, and N. Rungta. Property differencing for incremental checking. http://cs.txstate.edu/g-y10/publications/icse14-iproperty.pdf, to appear in ICSE 2014.
37. G. Yang, C. S. Pasareanu, and S. Khurshid. Memoized symbolic execution. In ISSTA, pages 144-154, 2012.