Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis

There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering Vol. 1; no. FSE; pp. 1307 - 1329
Main Authors: Beyer, Dirk, Kettl, Matthias, Lemberger, Thomas
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York, NY, USA ACM 12.07.2024
Subjects:
Computing methodologies
Evaluation
Formal methods
Formal software verification
General and reference
Parallel algorithms
Program reasoning
Software and its engineering
Theory of computation
Verification by model checking
Formal Verification
Program Analysis
Block Summaries
Contract Synthesis
Decomposition Strategies
Multi-process Model Checking
Parallelization
Software Model Checking
ISSN:2994-970X, 2994-970X
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries (block contracts) are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (computed from postconditions received from block predecessors, i.e., which program states reach this block) and violation conditions to check at the block exit (computed from violation conditions received from block successors, i.e., which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a postcondition or violation condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach on the basis of configurable program analysis and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well, and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.
AbstractList There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently leverage parallelization. This hinders the integration of software model checking into the development process (continuous integration). We propose an approach to decompose one large verification task into multiple smaller, connected verification tasks, based on blocks in the program control flow. For each block, summaries (block contracts) are computed — based on independent, distributed, continuous refinement by communication between the blocks. The approach iteratively synthesizes preconditions to assume at the block entry (computed from postconditions received from block predecessors, i.e., which program states reach this block) and violation conditions to check at the block exit (computed from violation conditions received from block successors, i.e., which program states lead to a specification violation). This separation of concerns leads to an architecture in which all blocks can be analyzed in parallel, as independent verification problems. Whenever new information (as a postcondition or violation condition) is available from other blocks, the verification can decide to restart with this new information. We realize our approach on the basis of configurable program analysis and implement it for the verification of C programs in the widely used verifier CPAchecker. A large experimental evaluation shows the potential of our new approach: The distribution of the workload to several processing units works well, and there is a significant reduction of the response time when using multiple processing units. There are even cases in which the new approach beats the highly-tuned, existing single-threaded predicate abstraction.
ArticleNumber 59
Author Lemberger, Thomas
Beyer, Dirk
Kettl, Matthias
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Dirk
  orcidid: 0000-0003-4832-7662
  surname: Beyer
  fullname: Beyer, Dirk
  email: dirk.beyer@sosy-lab.org
  organization: LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Matthias
  orcidid: 0000-0001-7365-5030
  surname: Kettl
  fullname: Kettl, Matthias
  email: matthias.kettl@sosy.ifi.lmu.de
  organization: LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Thomas
  orcidid: 0000-0003-0291-815X
  surname: Lemberger
  fullname: Lemberger, Thomas
  email: thomas.lemberger@sosy.ifi.lmu.de
  organization: LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
BookMark eNpNj81LAzEQxYNUsNbi3dPePK1Omm02OUpbP6DgoUW8LbPJRCPupiS7SP97W1vF0zzm_Xi8d84GbWiJsUsON5wX01shJZRSnrDhROsi1yW8Dv7pMzZO6QMAdh_OSxiyxZxMaDYh-fYtWwXXfWGk7IWid95g50Ob9T_e3Kcu-rrvyGarvmkwbrPVtu3eKfl0wU4dfiYaH--Ire8X69ljvnx-eJrdLXNUhcytFAJ1DSQLNKURYGuhcIJAwtSOK1DkjFXSCqWNBksCiVCSNGZaEBdixK4PsSaGlCK5ahP9vknFodrvr477d-TVgUTT_EG_5jfcbFir
Cites_doi 10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14
10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9
10.1145/1646353.1646374
10.1145/199448.199462
10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16
10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26
10.1002/spe.2949
10.1007/10722468_7
10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_31
10.1126/science.275.5296.51
10.1145/2049697.2049700
10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24
10.1145/1232420.1232423
10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27
10.1145/503272.503279
10.1145/3453483.3454044
10.1145/3368089.3409718
10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4
10.1145/996841.996844
10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3
10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147
10.1109/32.588521
10.34727/2023
10.5281/zenodo.11563223
10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x
10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1
10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y
10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15
10.1007/BFb0054162
10.1145/2491411.2501854
10.1145/1706299.1706353
10.1145/964001.964021
10.29007/d3bt
10.1145/1368088.1368118
10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1
10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11
10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14
10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51
10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z
10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3
10.2307/2963593
10.1007/10722167_15
10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16
10.1145/3238147.3238195
10.1007/11817963_14
10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1
10.1145/3477579
10.1137/0201010
10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5
10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30
10.1007/s11334-019-00331-9
10.1145/1965724.1965743
10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6
10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42
10.1145/876638.876643
10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_12
10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21
10.1007/3-540-45319-9_19
10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459
10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29
10.1145/1465482.1465560
10.1109/ASE.2008.13
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Owner/Author
Copyright_xml – notice: Owner/Author
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
DOI 10.1145/3660766
DatabaseName CrossRef
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
DatabaseTitleList CrossRef
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Computer Science
EISSN 2994-970X
EndPage 1329
ExternalDocumentID 10_1145_3660766
3660766
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  grantid: 378803395, 418257054
  funderid: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.13039\/501100001659
GroupedDBID AAKMM
ACM
AEJOY
AKRVB
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
LHSKQ
M~E
AAYXX
CITATION
ROL
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-a846-d633a9b0e64ac7c30db38a2a0e3cbf1808efcd86d389c90de3aeea6e6cc54e133
ISSN 2994-970X
IngestDate Sat Nov 29 07:49:00 EST 2025
Mon Jul 14 20:49:06 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue FSE
Keywords Formal Verification
Program Analysis
Block Summaries
Contract Synthesis
Decomposition Strategies
Multi-process Model Checking
Parallelization
Software Model Checking
Language English
License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a846-d633a9b0e64ac7c30db38a2a0e3cbf1808efcd86d389c90de3aeea6e6cc54e133
ORCID 0000-0001-7365-5030
0000-0003-0291-815X
0000-0003-4832-7662
OpenAccessLink https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660766
PageCount 23
ParticipantIDs crossref_primary_10_1145_3660766
acm_primary_3660766
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20240712
2024-07-12
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2024-07-12
PublicationDate_xml – month: 07
  year: 2024
  text: 20240712
  day: 12
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace New York, NY, USA
PublicationPlace_xml – name: New York, NY, USA
PublicationTitle Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering
PublicationTitleAbbrev ACM PACMSE
PublicationYear 2024
Publisher ACM
Publisher_xml – name: ACM
References D. Babic and A. J. Hu. 2008. Calysto: Scalable and precise extended static checking. In Proc. ICSE. ACM, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368118 10.1145/1368088.1368118
E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. 2003. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM, 50, 5 (2003), 752–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/876638.876643 10.1145/876638.876643
D. Baier, D. Beyer, P.-C. Chien, M. Jankola, M. Kettl, N.-Z. Lee, T. Lemberger, M. Lingsch-Rosenfeld, M. Spiessl, H. Wachowitz, and P. Wendler. 2024. CPAchecker 2.3 with strategy selection (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (3) (LNCS 14572). Springer, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21 10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21
D. Beyer, S. Löwe, and P. Wendler. 2019. Reliable benchmarking: Requirements and solutions. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer, 21, 1 (2019), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y 10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y
D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, and G. Théoduloz. 2007. Configurable software verification: Concretizing the convergence of model checking and program analysis. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 4590). Springer, 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51 10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51
A. V. Khoroshilov, V. S. Mutilin, A. K. Petrenko, and V. Zakharov. 2009. Establishing Linux driver verification process. In Proc. Ershov Memorial Conference (LNCS 5947). Springer, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14 10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14
A. Wilson, A. Nötzli, A. Reynolds, B. Cook, C. Tinelli, and C. W. Barrett. 2023. Partitioning strategies for distributed SMT solving. In Proc. FMCAD. IEEE, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.34727/2023/ISBN.978-3-85448-060-0_28 10.34727/2023/ISBN.978-3-85448-060-0_28
D. Wonisch and H. Wehrheim. 2012. Predicate analysis with block-abstraction memoization. In Proc. ICFEM (LNCS 7635). Springer, 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24 10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24
S. Löwe, M. U. Mandrykin, and P. Wendler. 2014. CPAchecker with sequential combination of explicit-value analyses and predicate analyses (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 8413). Springer, 392–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27 10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27
B. Cook. 2018. Formal reasoning about the security of Amazon web services. In Proc. CAV (2) (LNCS 10981). Springer, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3 10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3
D. Beyer and M. Dangl. 2020. Software verification with PDR: An implementation of the state of the art. In Proc. TACAS (1) (LNCS 12078). Springer, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1 10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1
D. Beyer, S. Gulwani, and D. Schmidt. 2018. Combining model checking and data-flow analysis. In Handbook of Model Checking. Springer, 493–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16 10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16
C. Richter, E. Hüllermeier, M.-C. Jakobs, and H. Wehrheim. 2020. Algorithm selection for software validation based on graph kernels. Autom. Softw. Eng., 27, 1 (2020), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x 10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x
T. W. Reps. 1997. Program analysis via graph reachability. In Proc. ILPS. MIT, 5–19.
D. Beyer, N.-Z. Lee, and P. Wendler. 2024. Interpolation and SAT-based model checking revisited: Adoption to software verification. J. Autom. Reasoning, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9 Preprint: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046 10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9
R. E. Tarjan. 1972. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput., 1, 2 (1972), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1137/0201010 10.1137/0201010
W. Craig. 1957. Linear reasoning. A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem. J. Symb. Log., 22, 3 (1957), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963593 10.2307/2963593
D. Beyer. 2023. Software testing: 5th comparative evaluation: Test-Comp 2023. In Proc. FASE (LNCS 13991). Springer.
C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, J. Dubreil, D. Gabi, P. Hooimeijer, M. Luca, P. W. O’Hearn, I. Papakonstantinou, J. Purbrick, and D. Rodriguez. 2015. Moving fast with software verification. In Proc. NFM (LNCS 9058). Springer, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1 10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1
A. F. Donaldson, L. Haller, D. Kröning, and P. Rümmer. 2011. Software verification using k-induction. In Proc. SAS (LNCS 6887). Springer, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26 10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26
P. Peringer, V. Šoková, and T. Vojnar. 2020. PredatorHP revamped (not only) for interval-sized memory regions and memory reallocation (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (2) (LNCS 12079). Springer, 408–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30 10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30
D. Beyer, S. Kanav, and C. Richter. 2022. Construction of verifier combinations based on off-the-shelf verifiers. In Proc. FASE. Springer, 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3 10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3
D. Beyer and K. Friedberger. 2018. Domain-independent multi-threaded software model checking. In Proc. ASE. ACM, 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1145/3238147.3238195 10.1145/3238147.3238195
C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, P. W. O’Hearn, and H. Yang. 2011. Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. J. ACM, 58, 6 (2011), 26:1–26:66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2049697.2049700 10.1145/2049697.2049700
T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. 2000. Bebop: A symbolic model checker for boolean programs. In Proc. SPIN (LNCS 1885). Springer, 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/10722468_7 10.1007/10722468_7
M. Heizmann, J. Hoenicke, and A. Podelski. 2010. Nested interpolants. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1145/1706299.1706353 10.1145/1706299.1706353
C. Hewitt. 2015. Actor model of computation: Scalable robust information systems. arXiv/CoRR, 1008, 1459 (2015), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459 10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459
K. L. McMillan. 2003. Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 2725). Springer, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1 10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1
D. Beyer, A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, M. E. Keremoglu, and R. Sebastiani. 2009. Software model checking via large-block encoding. In Proc. FMCAD. IEEE, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147 10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147
N. Chong, B. Cook, J. Eidelman, K. Kallas, K. Khazem, F. R. Monteiro, D. Schwartz-Narbonne, S. Tasiran, M. Tautschnig, and M. R. Tuttle. 2021. Code-level model checking in the software development workflow at Amazon Web Services. Softw. Pract. Exp., 51, 4 (2021), 772–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2949 10.1002/spe.2949
J. Barnat, P. Rockai, V. Still, and J. Weiser. 2015. Fast, dynamically-sized concurrent hash table. In Proc. SPIN (LNCS 9232). Springer, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5 10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5
D. Beyer, M. Dangl, D. Dietsch, M. Heizmann, T. Lemberger, and M. Tautschnig. 2022. Verification witnesses. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31, 4 (2022), 57:1–57:69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477579 10.1145/3477579
D. Beyer and M. Dangl. 2018. Strategy selection for software verification based on boolean features: A simple but effective approach. In Proc. ISoLA (LNCS 11245). Springer, 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11 10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11
D. Beyer, M. Dangl, and P. Wendler. 2018. A unifying view on SMT-based software verification. J. Autom. Reasoning, 60, 3 (2018), 299–335. issn:1573-0670 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6 10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6
A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. 1999. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 1579). Springer, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14 10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14
K. L. McMillan. 2006. Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 4144). Springer, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/11817963_14 10.1007/11817963_14
S. McPeak, C. H. Gros, and M. K. Ramanathan. 2013. Scalable and incremental software bug detection. In Proc. ESEC/FSE. ACM, 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491411.2501854 10.1145/2491411.2501854
G. J. Holzmann. 1997. The Spin model checker. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 23, 5 (1997), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.588521 10.1109/32.588521
T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, and R. Majumdar. 2004. Race checking by context inference. In Proc. PLDI. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/996841.996844 10.1145/996841.996844
E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. 2000. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 1855). Springer, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_15 10.1007/10722167_15
D. Beyer, M. E. Keremoglu, and P. Wendler. 2010. Predicate abstraction with adjustable-block encoding. In Proc. FMCAD. FMCAD, 189–197. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5770949
T. van Dijk. 2016. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/100676
D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, and R. Majumdar. 2007. The software model checker Blast. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer, 9, 5-6 (2007), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z 10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z
T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and K. L. McMillan. 2004. Abstractions from proofs. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964021 10.1145/964001.964021
S. Asadi, M. Blicha, G. Fedyukovich, A. E. J. Hyvärinen, K. Even-Mendoza, N. Sharygina, and H. Chockler. 2018. Function summarization modulo theories. In Proc. LPAR (EPiC, Vol. 57). EasyChair, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.29007/d3bt 10.29007/d3bt
A. Albarghouthi, A. Gurfinkel, and M. Chechik. 2012. Whale: An interpolation-based algorithm for inter-procedural verification. In Proc. VMCAI (LNCS 7148). Springer, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4 10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4
B. A. Huberman, R. M. Lukose, and T. Hogg. 1997. An economics approach to hard computational problems. Science, 275, 7 (1997), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5296.51 10.1126/science.275.5296.51
D. Beyer. 2023.
e_1_2_1_60_1
e_1_2_1_20_1
e_1_2_1_41_1
e_1_2_1_66_1
e_1_2_1_24_1
e_1_2_1_45_1
e_1_2_1_22_1
e_1_2_1_43_1
e_1_2_1_64_1
e_1_2_1_28_1
e_1_2_1_49_1
e_1_2_1_26_1
e_1_2_1_47_1
van Dijk T. (e_1_2_1_52_1)
e_1_2_1_31_1
e_1_2_1_54_1
e_1_2_1_8_1
e_1_2_1_56_1
e_1_2_1_6_1
e_1_2_1_12_1
e_1_2_1_35_1
e_1_2_1_50_1
e_1_2_1_4_1
e_1_2_1_10_1
e_1_2_1_33_1
e_1_2_1_2_1
e_1_2_1_39_1
e_1_2_1_14_1
e_1_2_1_37_1
e_1_2_1_58_1
e_1_2_1_18_1
Beyer D. (e_1_2_1_16_1)
Beyer D. (e_1_2_1_62_1) 2023
e_1_2_1_42_1
e_1_2_1_65_1
e_1_2_1_40_1
e_1_2_1_67_1
e_1_2_1_23_1
e_1_2_1_46_1
e_1_2_1_61_1
e_1_2_1_21_1
e_1_2_1_44_1
e_1_2_1_63_1
e_1_2_1_27_1
e_1_2_1_25_1
e_1_2_1_48_1
e_1_2_1_29_1
Reps T. W. (e_1_2_1_30_1) 1997
e_1_2_1_7_1
e_1_2_1_55_1
e_1_2_1_5_1
e_1_2_1_57_1
e_1_2_1_3_1
e_1_2_1_13_1
e_1_2_1_34_1
e_1_2_1_51_1
e_1_2_1_1_1
e_1_2_1_11_1
e_1_2_1_32_1
e_1_2_1_53_1
e_1_2_1_17_1
e_1_2_1_38_1
e_1_2_1_15_1
e_1_2_1_36_1
e_1_2_1_59_1
e_1_2_1_9_1
e_1_2_1_19_1
References_xml – reference: C. Richter, E. Hüllermeier, M.-C. Jakobs, and H. Wehrheim. 2020. Algorithm selection for software validation based on graph kernels. Autom. Softw. Eng., 27, 1 (2020), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x 10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x
– reference: D. Babic and A. J. Hu. 2008. Calysto: Scalable and precise extended static checking. In Proc. ICSE. ACM, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368118 10.1145/1368088.1368118
– reference: B. Stein, B.-Y. E. Chang, and M. Sridharan. 2021. Demanded abstract interpretation. In Proc. PLDI. ACM, 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453483.3454044 10.1145/3453483.3454044
– reference: T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and K. L. McMillan. 2004. Abstractions from proofs. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964021 10.1145/964001.964021
– reference: A. Bessey, K. Block, B. Chelf, A. Chou, B. Fulton, S. Hallem, C. Gros, A. Kamsky, S. McPeak, and D. R. Engler. 2010. A few billion lines of code later: Using static analysis to find bugs in the real world. Commun. ACM, 53, 2 (2010), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/1646353.1646374 10.1145/1646353.1646374
– reference: T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. 2000. Bebop: A symbolic model checker for boolean programs. In Proc. SPIN (LNCS 1885). Springer, 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/10722468_7 10.1007/10722468_7
– reference: D. Beyer, A. Cimatti, A. Griggio, M. E. Keremoglu, and R. Sebastiani. 2009. Software model checking via large-block encoding. In Proc. FMCAD. IEEE, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147 10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147
– reference: S. Blom, J. van de Pol, and M. Weber. 2010. LTSmin: Distributed and symbolic reachability. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 6174). Springer, 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_31 10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_31
– reference: P. Peringer, V. Šoková, and T. Vojnar. 2020. PredatorHP revamped (not only) for interval-sized memory regions and memory reallocation (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (2) (LNCS 12079). Springer, 408–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30 10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30
– reference: D. Beyer. 2024. State of the art in software verification and witness validation: SV-COMP 2024. In Proc. TACAS (3) (LNCS 14572). Springer, 299–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15 10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15
– reference: D. Beyer, M. Kettl, and T. Lemberger. 2024. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11563223 10.5281/zenodo.11563223
– reference: E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. 2003. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM, 50, 5 (2003), 752–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/876638.876643 10.1145/876638.876643
– reference: M. Heizmann, J. Hoenicke, and A. Podelski. 2010. Nested interpolants. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1145/1706299.1706353 10.1145/1706299.1706353
– reference: T. Ball and S. K. Rajamani. 2000. Boolean programs: A model and process for software analysis. Microsoft Research. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/tr-2000-14.pdf
– reference: T. W. Reps, S. Horwitz, and M. Sagiv. 1995. Precise interprocedural data-flow analysis via graph reachability. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/199448.199462 10.1145/199448.199462
– reference: T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, and R. Majumdar. 2004. Race checking by context inference. In Proc. PLDI. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/996841.996844 10.1145/996841.996844
– reference: K. Laster and O. Grumberg. 1998. Modular model checking of software. In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 1384). Springer, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054162 10.1007/BFb0054162
– reference: D. Beyer, M. Dangl, D. Dietsch, M. Heizmann, T. Lemberger, and M. Tautschnig. 2022. Verification witnesses. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31, 4 (2022), 57:1–57:69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477579 10.1145/3477579
– reference: S. Asadi, M. Blicha, G. Fedyukovich, A. E. J. Hyvärinen, K. Even-Mendoza, N. Sharygina, and H. Chockler. 2018. Function summarization modulo theories. In Proc. LPAR (EPiC, Vol. 57). EasyChair, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.29007/d3bt 10.29007/d3bt
– reference: D. Beyer, M. Dangl, and P. Wendler. 2015. Boosting k-induction with continuously-refined invariants. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 9206). Springer, 622–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42 10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42
– reference: D. Beyer, M. E. Keremoglu, and P. Wendler. 2010. Predicate abstraction with adjustable-block encoding. In Proc. FMCAD. FMCAD, 189–197. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5770949
– reference: T. W. Reps. 1997. Program analysis via graph reachability. In Proc. ILPS. MIT, 5–19.
– reference: A. F. Donaldson, L. Haller, D. Kröning, and P. Rümmer. 2011. Software verification using k-induction. In Proc. SAS (LNCS 6887). Springer, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26 10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26
– reference: D. Beyer, S. Kanav, and C. Richter. 2022. Construction of verifier combinations based on off-the-shelf verifiers. In Proc. FASE. Springer, 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3 10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3
– reference: G. J. Holzmann. 1997. The Spin model checker. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 23, 5 (1997), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.588521 10.1109/32.588521
– reference: D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, and R. Majumdar. 2007. The software model checker Blast. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer, 9, 5-6 (2007), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z 10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z
– reference: D. Beyer, N.-Z. Lee, and P. Wendler. 2024. Interpolation and SAT-based model checking revisited: Adoption to software verification. J. Autom. Reasoning, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9 Preprint: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.05046 10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9
– reference: N. Chong, B. Cook, J. Eidelman, K. Kallas, K. Khazem, F. R. Monteiro, D. Schwartz-Narbonne, S. Tasiran, M. Tautschnig, and M. R. Tuttle. 2021. Code-level model checking in the software development workflow at Amazon Web Services. Softw. Pract. Exp., 51, 4 (2021), 772–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2949 10.1002/spe.2949
– reference: A. Albarghouthi, A. Gurfinkel, and M. Chechik. 2012. Whale: An interpolation-based algorithm for inter-procedural verification. In Proc. VMCAI (LNCS 7148). Springer, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4 10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4
– reference: E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. 2000. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 1855). Springer, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/10722167_15 10.1007/10722167_15
– reference: D. Beyer and M. Dangl. 2020. Software verification with PDR: An implementation of the state of the art. In Proc. TACAS (1) (LNCS 12078). Springer, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1 10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1
– reference: D. Beyer. 2023. Competition on software verification and witness validation: SV-COMP 2023. In Proc. TACAS (2) (LNCS 13994). Springer, 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29 10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29
– reference: D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, and G. Théoduloz. 2007. Configurable software verification: Concretizing the convergence of model checking and program analysis. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 4590). Springer, 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51 10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51
– reference: D. Beyer. 2023. Software testing: 5th comparative evaluation: Test-Comp 2023. In Proc. FASE (LNCS 13991). Springer.
– reference: K. L. McMillan. 2006. Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 4144). Springer, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/11817963_14 10.1007/11817963_14
– reference: D. Beyer, S. Gulwani, and D. Schmidt. 2018. Combining model checking and data-flow analysis. In Handbook of Model Checking. Springer, 493–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16 10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16
– reference: D. Beyer and M. Dangl. 2018. Strategy selection for software verification based on boolean features: A simple but effective approach. In Proc. ISoLA (LNCS 11245). Springer, 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11 10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11
– reference: Y. Xie and A. Aiken. 2007. Saturn: A scalable framework for error detection using boolean satisfiability. TOPLAS, 29, 3 (2007), 16. https://doi.org/10.1145/1232420.1232423 10.1145/1232420.1232423
– reference: A. V. Khoroshilov, V. S. Mutilin, A. K. Petrenko, and V. Zakharov. 2009. Establishing Linux driver verification process. In Proc. Ershov Memorial Conference (LNCS 5947). Springer, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14 10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14
– reference: A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. 1999. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 1579). Springer, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14 10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14
– reference: G. Yang, R. Qiu, S. Khurshid, C. S. Pasareanu, and J. Wen. 2019. A synergistic approach to improving symbolic execution using test ranges. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng., 15, 3-4 (2019), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-019-00331-9 10.1007/s11334-019-00331-9
– reference: L. Alt, S. Asadi, H. Chockler, K. Even-Mendoza, G. Fedyukovich, A. E. J. Hyvärinen, and N. Sharygina. 2017. HiFrog: SMT-based function summarization for software verification. In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 10206). 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_12 10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_12
– reference: S. McPeak, C. H. Gros, and M. K. Ramanathan. 2013. Scalable and incremental software bug detection. In Proc. ESEC/FSE. ACM, 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491411.2501854 10.1145/2491411.2501854
– reference: T. Ball, A. Podelski, and S. K. Rajamani. 2001. Boolean and Cartesian abstraction for model checking C programs. In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 2031). Springer, 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45319-9_19 10.1007/3-540-45319-9_19
– reference: B. A. Huberman, R. M. Lukose, and T. Hogg. 1997. An economics approach to hard computational problems. Science, 275, 7 (1997), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5296.51 10.1126/science.275.5296.51
– reference: G. M. Amdahl. 1967. Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. In Proc. AFIPS. ACM, 483–485. https://doi.org/10.1145/1465482.1465560 10.1145/1465482.1465560
– reference: R. E. Tarjan. 1972. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput., 1, 2 (1972), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1137/0201010 10.1137/0201010
– reference: D. Baier, D. Beyer, P.-C. Chien, M. Jankola, M. Kettl, N.-Z. Lee, T. Lemberger, M. Lingsch-Rosenfeld, M. Spiessl, H. Wachowitz, and P. Wendler. 2024. CPAchecker 2.3 with strategy selection (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (3) (LNCS 14572). Springer, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21 10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21
– reference: C. Hewitt. 2015. Actor model of computation: Scalable robust information systems. arXiv/CoRR, 1008, 1459 (2015), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459 10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459
– reference: T. van Dijk. 2016. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/100676
– reference: B. Cook. 2018. Formal reasoning about the security of Amazon web services. In Proc. CAV (2) (LNCS 10981). Springer, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3 10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3
– reference: D. Beyer and K. Friedberger. 2020. Domain-independent interprocedural program analysis using block-abstraction memoization. In Proc. ESEC/FSE. ACM, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409718 10.1145/3368089.3409718
– reference: D. Wonisch and H. Wehrheim. 2012. Predicate analysis with block-abstraction memoization. In Proc. ICFEM (LNCS 7635). Springer, 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24 10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24
– reference: D. Beyer, T. A. Henzinger, and G. Théoduloz. 2008. Program analysis with dynamic precision adjustment. In Proc. ASE. IEEE, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2008.13 10.1109/ASE.2008.13
– reference: D. Beyer and M. E. Keremoglu. 2011. CPAchecker: A tool for configurable software verification. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 6806). Springer, 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16 10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16
– reference: K. L. McMillan. 2003. Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In Proc. CAV (LNCS 2725). Springer, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1 10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1
– reference: C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, J. Dubreil, D. Gabi, P. Hooimeijer, M. Luca, P. W. O’Hearn, I. Papakonstantinou, J. Purbrick, and D. Rodriguez. 2015. Moving fast with software verification. In Proc. NFM (LNCS 9058). Springer, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1 10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1
– reference: D. Beyer, M. Dangl, and P. Wendler. 2018. A unifying view on SMT-based software verification. J. Autom. Reasoning, 60, 3 (2018), 299–335. issn:1573-0670 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6 10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6
– reference: W. Craig. 1957. Linear reasoning. A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem. J. Symb. Log., 22, 3 (1957), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963593 10.2307/2963593
– reference: J. Barnat, P. Rockai, V. Still, and J. Weiser. 2015. Fast, dynamically-sized concurrent hash table. In Proc. SPIN (LNCS 9232). Springer, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5 10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5
– reference: D. Beyer, S. Löwe, and P. Wendler. 2019. Reliable benchmarking: Requirements and solutions. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer, 21, 1 (2019), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y 10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y
– reference: T. Ball, V. Levin, and S. K. Rajamani. 2011. A decade of software model checking with Slam. Commun. ACM, 54, 7 (2011), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1965724.1965743 10.1145/1965724.1965743
– reference: A. Wilson, A. Nötzli, A. Reynolds, B. Cook, C. Tinelli, and C. W. Barrett. 2023. Partitioning strategies for distributed SMT solving. In Proc. FMCAD. IEEE, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.34727/2023/ISBN.978-3-85448-060-0_28 10.34727/2023/ISBN.978-3-85448-060-0_28
– reference: D. Beyer and K. Friedberger. 2018. Domain-independent multi-threaded software model checking. In Proc. ASE. ACM, 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1145/3238147.3238195 10.1145/3238147.3238195
– reference: S. Löwe, M. U. Mandrykin, and P. Wendler. 2014. CPAchecker with sequential combination of explicit-value analyses and predicate analyses (competition contribution). In Proc. TACAS (LNCS 8413). Springer, 392–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27 10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27
– reference: T. A. Henzinger, R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, and G. Sutre. 2002. Lazy abstraction. In Proc. POPL. ACM, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/503272.503279 10.1145/503272.503279
– reference: C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, P. W. O’Hearn, and H. Yang. 2011. Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. J. ACM, 58, 6 (2011), 26:1–26:66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2049697.2049700 10.1145/2049697.2049700
– ident: e_1_2_1_36_1
  doi: 10.1007/3-540-49059-0_14
– ident: e_1_2_1_59_1
  doi: 10.1007/s10817-024-09702-9
– ident: e_1_2_1_53_1
  doi: 10.1145/1646353.1646374
– ident: e_1_2_1_29_1
  doi: 10.1145/199448.199462
– ident: e_1_2_1_54_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_16
– ident: e_1_2_1_38_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23702-7_26
– ident: e_1_2_1_6_1
  doi: 10.1002/spe.2949
– ident: e_1_2_1_27_1
  doi: 10.1007/10722468_7
– volume-title: Software testing: 5th comparative evaluation: Test-Comp
  year: 2023
  ident: e_1_2_1_62_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_51_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_31
– ident: e_1_2_1_12_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_40_1
  doi: 10.1126/science.275.5296.51
– ident: e_1_2_1_25_1
  doi: 10.1145/2049697.2049700
– ident: e_1_2_1_18_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_24
– ident: e_1_2_1_49_1
  doi: 10.1145/1232420.1232423
– ident: e_1_2_1_42_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_27
– ident: e_1_2_1_57_1
  doi: 10.1145/503272.503279
– ident: e_1_2_1_32_1
  doi: 10.1145/3453483.3454044
– ident: e_1_2_1_20_1
  doi: 10.1145/3368089.3409718
– ident: e_1_2_1_28_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-27940-9_4
– ident: e_1_2_1_31_1
  doi: 10.1145/996841.996844
– ident: e_1_2_1_44_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-99429-7_3
– ident: e_1_2_1_17_1
  doi: 10.1109/FMCAD.2009.5351147
– ident: e_1_2_1_46_1
  doi: 10.1109/32.588521
– ident: e_1_2_1_7_1
  doi: 10.34727/2023
– ident: e_1_2_1_63_1
  doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11563223
– ident: e_1_2_1_67_1
  doi: 10.1007/s10515-020-00270-x
– ident: e_1_2_1_24_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_60_1
  doi: 10.1007/s10009-017-0469-y
– ident: e_1_2_1_1_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_15
– ident: e_1_2_1_8_1
  doi: 10.1007/BFb0054162
– ident: e_1_2_1_50_1
  doi: 10.1145/2491411.2501854
– ident: e_1_2_1_33_1
  doi: 10.1145/1706299.1706353
– ident: e_1_2_1_10_1
  doi: 10.1145/964001.964021
– ident: e_1_2_1_22_1
  doi: 10.29007/d3bt
– ident: e_1_2_1_26_1
  doi: 10.1145/1368088.1368118
– ident: e_1_2_1_3_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17524-9_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_66_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-03421-4_11
– ident: e_1_2_1_4_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_14
– ident: e_1_2_1_9_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_51
– ident: e_1_2_1_34_1
  doi: 10.1007/s10009-007-0044-z
– ident: e_1_2_1_5_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96145-3_3
– ident: e_1_2_1_23_1
  doi: 10.2307/2963593
– ident: e_1_2_1_13_1
  doi: 10.1007/10722167_15
– ident: e_1_2_1_15_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_16
– ident: e_1_2_1_19_1
  doi: 10.1145/3238147.3238195
– volume-title: University of Twente
  ident: e_1_2_1_52_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_39_1
  doi: 10.1007/11817963_14
– ident: e_1_2_1_37_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45190-5_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_65_1
  doi: 10.1145/3477579
– ident: e_1_2_1_14_1
  doi: 10.1137/0201010
– ident: e_1_2_1_47_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23404-5_5
– ident: e_1_2_1_43_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45237-7_30
– volume-title: Proc. ILPS. MIT, 5–19
  year: 1997
  ident: e_1_2_1_30_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_48_1
  doi: 10.1007/s11334-019-00331-9
– ident: e_1_2_1_2_1
  doi: 10.1145/1965724.1965743
– volume-title: Proc. FMCAD. FMCAD, 189–197
  ident: e_1_2_1_16_1
– ident: e_1_2_1_35_1
  doi: 10.1007/s10817-017-9432-6
– ident: e_1_2_1_45_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_42
– ident: e_1_2_1_11_1
  doi: 10.1145/876638.876643
– ident: e_1_2_1_21_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-54580-5_12
– ident: e_1_2_1_41_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-57256-2_21
– ident: e_1_2_1_56_1
  doi: 10.1007/3-540-45319-9_19
– ident: e_1_2_1_58_1
  doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1008.1459
– ident: e_1_2_1_61_1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-30820-8_29
– ident: e_1_2_1_64_1
  doi: 10.1145/1465482.1465560
– ident: e_1_2_1_55_1
  doi: 10.1109/ASE.2008.13
SSID ssj0002991170
Score 2.2616823
Snippet There are many approaches for automated software verification, but they are either imprecise, do not scale well to large systems, or do not sufficiently...
SourceID crossref
acm
SourceType Index Database
Publisher
StartPage 1307
SubjectTerms Computing methodologies
Evaluation
Formal methods
Formal software verification
General and reference
Parallel algorithms
Program reasoning
Software and its engineering
Theory of computation
Verification by model checking
SubjectTermsDisplay Computing methodologies -- Parallel algorithms
General and reference -- Evaluation
Software and its engineering -- Formal methods
Software and its engineering -- Formal software verification
Theory of computation -- Program reasoning
Theory of computation -- Verification by model checking
Title Decomposing Software Verification using Distributed Summary Synthesis
URI https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660766
Volume 1
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
journalDatabaseRights – providerCode: PRVHPJ
  databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 2994-970X
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002991170
  issn: 2994-970X
  databaseCode: M~E
  dateStart: 20240101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org
  providerName: ISSN International Centre
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1LT9wwELZayqGXPoCq9CUfekMrnNix4yOCRT0UhLSram_Ia09g1RIQCS1c-ts7jp3EIA7toZcoihNn5W8y_mZ2HoR8rjJTSB89haYDGigOPymTMzGBolAglUOSbLtmE-r4uFws9EnMPWm6dgKqrsvbW331X6HGawi2T539B7iHSfECniPoeETY8fhXwB-ADxO_7HwAM1Syv3xs1zd8cxXdczs33diBL5nru115yhlS2HZmdzUSwmbVpJz1ZNjjmj6iYG__yP_L0PTTw1jVcLDv4S5IAyrV76Nab9sfIUWobc9XZiD0X8E3JjmL8jMGLUV_RC68ozPLEwmKMe6dDst95WGt2OKewk3k6nA2TdQnbqgq2YrRUtaPq3nhK2JwKZmSDwpph605jDwlz3JVaB_pd_R7dL3hj_L9dkIKtZ9rN97vGYq9SBhKQjXmr8iLaCPQvYDta_IE6g3ysu-_QaM63iTTBGraQ01TqGkHNU2gphFqOkC9ReaH0_n-l0lsizExSBYnTnJu9JKBFMYqy5lb8tLkhgG3yyorWQmVdaXEz05bzRxwA2AkSGsLARnnb8hafVnDW0KXKnNFBtpYQKuSOSN4rgQTFbPOCS63yQaux-lVqHtyGldpm9B-fYahkN5e9Le8e_TB9-T5KDAfyFp7fQMfybr92a6a608dRn8ACsFUig
linkProvider ISSN International Centre
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Decomposing+Software+Verification+using+Distributed+Summary+Synthesis&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+ACM+on+software+engineering&rft.au=Beyer%2C+Dirk&rft.au=Kettl%2C+Matthias&rft.au=Lemberger%2C+Thomas&rft.date=2024-07-12&rft.pub=ACM&rft.eissn=2994-970X&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=FSE&rft.spage=1307&rft.epage=1329&rft_id=info:doi/10.1145%2F3660766&rft.externalDocID=3660766
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2994-970X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2994-970X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2994-970X&client=summon