2011 · 11 citations · 9 references
ComputingComputer ScienceDesign AutomationFormal MethodsModel-based Systems EngineeringDeductive VerificationDesign SpecificationInteractive Proof SystemsSpecification LanguagesTheorem ProvingVerificationAutomated Theorem ProvingCounterexample AnalysisCounterexample GenerationFormal Proof SystemsFormal ReasoningFormal SpecificationsInteractive Theorem ProvingProof Automation
Abstract—A method for analyzing designs and their specifications is presented. The method makes essential use of an interactive theorem prover, but is fully automatic. Given a design and a specification, the method returns one of three possible answers. It can report that the design does not satisfy the specification, in which case a concrete counterexample is provided. It can report that the design does satisfy the specification, in which case a formal proof to that effect is provided. If neither of these cases hold, then a summary of the analysis is reported. We have implemented and experimentally validated the method in ACL2s, the ACL2 Sedan. I.
9
Software abstractions: logic, language and analysis
Choice Reviews Online · 2007 · 1.5K citations
Koen Claessen, John Hughes · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2011 · 1K citations
Daniel Jackson, Ian R. Schechter, Hya Shlyahter · 2000 · 287 citations
David M. Russinoff · LMS Journal of Computation and Mathematics · 1998 · 170 citations · Full text
Random testing in Isabelle/HOL
Stefan Berghofer, Tobias Nipkow · 2004 · 83 citations