The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs
Abstract
Model checking has been widely successful in validating and debugging designs in the hardware and protocol domains. However, state-space explosion limits the applicability of model checking tools, so model checkers typically operate on abstractions of systems. Recently, there has been significant interest in applying model checking to software. For infinite-state systems like software, abstraction is even more critical. Techniques for abstracting software are a prerequisite to making software model checking a reality. We present the first algorithm to automatically construct a predicate abstraction of programs written in am industrial programming language such as C, and its implementation in a tool -- C2BP. The C2BP tool is part of the SLAM toolkit, which uses a combination of predicate abstraction, model checking, symbolic reasoning, and iterative refinement to statically check temporal safety properties of programs. Predicate abstraction of software has many applications, including detecting program errors, synthesizing program invariants, and improving the precision of program analyses through predicate sensitivity. We discuss our experience applying the C2BP predicate abstraction tool to a variety of problems, ranging from checking that list-manipulating code preserves heap invariants to finding errors in Windows NT device drivers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cousot, P., & Cousot, R. (1977) · Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '77 · doi:10.1145/512950.512973 · Cited by 6,279
Necula, G. C. (1997) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '97 · doi:10.1145/263699.263712 · Cited by 1,843
Cited by
Henzinger, T. A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., & Sutre, G. (2002) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages · doi:10.1145/503272.503279 · Cited by 1,155
Self-citationSatisfiability Modulo Theories
Barrett, C., & Tinelli, C. (2018) · Handbook of Model Checking · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8_11 · Cited by 1,122
EXE: automatically generating inputs of death
Cadar, C., Ganesh, V., Pawlowski, P. M., Dill, D. L., & Engler, D. R. (2006) · Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/1180405.1180445 · Cited by 788
Simplify: a theorem prover for program checking
Detlefs, D., Nelson, G., & Saxe, J. B. (2005) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1066100.1066102 · Cited by 786
Ammons, G., Bodík, R., & Larus, J. R. (2002) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages · doi:10.1145/503272.503275 · Cited by 665
Metadata
- Authors
- Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., & Rajamani, S. K.
- Venue
- ACM SIGPLAN Notices
- Published
- 2012-03-18
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4a
- Pages
- 37-47
- ISSN
- 0362-1340 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-1160
- OpenAlex
- W2162284942
- Cited by
- 694
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 47.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2442776.2442783
- The paper
- Ball, T., Majumdar, R., Millstein, T., & Rajamani, S. K. (2012). Automatic predicate abstraction of C programs. ACM SIGPLAN Notices. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442776.2442783
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.