{"title":"TestMC","authors":"Muhammad Usman, Wenxi Wang, S. Khurshid","doi":"10.1145/3324884.3416563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Model counting is the problem for finding the number of solutions to a formula over a bounded universe. This is a classic problem in computer science that has seen many recent advances in techniques and tools that tackle it. These advances have led to applications of model counting in many domains, e.g., quantitative program analysis, reliability, and security. Given the sheer complexity of the underlying problem, today's model counters employ sophisticated algorithms and heuristics, which result in complex tools that must be heavily optimized. Therefore, establishing the correctness of implementations of model counters necessitates rigorous testing. This experience paper presents an empirical study on testing industrial strength model counters by applying the principles of differential and metamorphic testing together with bounded exhaustive input generation and input minimization. We embody these principles in the TestMC framework, and apply it to test four model counters, including three state-of-the-art model counters from three different classes. Specifically, we test the exact model counters projMC and dSharp, the probabilistic exact model counter Ganak, and the probabilistic approximate model counter ApproxMC. As subjects, we use three complementary test suites of input formulas. One suite consists of larger formulas that are derived from a wide range of real-world software design problems. The second suite consists of a bounded exhaustive set of small formulas that TestMC generated. The third suite consists of formulas generated using an off-the-shelf CNF fuzzer. TestMC found bugs in three of the four subject model counters. The bugs led to crashes, segmentation faults, incorrect model counts, and resource exhaustion by the solvers. Two of the tools were corrected subsequent to the bug reports we submitted based on our study, whereas the bugs we reported in the third tool were deemed by the tool authors to not require a fix.","PeriodicalId":267160,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TestMC\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Usman, Wenxi Wang, S. Khurshid\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3324884.3416563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Model counting is the problem for finding the number of solutions to a formula over a bounded universe. This is a classic problem in computer science that has seen many recent advances in techniques and tools that tackle it. These advances have led to applications of model counting in many domains, e.g., quantitative program analysis, reliability, and security. Given the sheer complexity of the underlying problem, today's model counters employ sophisticated algorithms and heuristics, which result in complex tools that must be heavily optimized. Therefore, establishing the correctness of implementations of model counters necessitates rigorous testing. This experience paper presents an empirical study on testing industrial strength model counters by applying the principles of differential and metamorphic testing together with bounded exhaustive input generation and input minimization. We embody these principles in the TestMC framework, and apply it to test four model counters, including three state-of-the-art model counters from three different classes. Specifically, we test the exact model counters projMC and dSharp, the probabilistic exact model counter Ganak, and the probabilistic approximate model counter ApproxMC. As subjects, we use three complementary test suites of input formulas. One suite consists of larger formulas that are derived from a wide range of real-world software design problems. The second suite consists of a bounded exhaustive set of small formulas that TestMC generated. The third suite consists of formulas generated using an off-the-shelf CNF fuzzer. TestMC found bugs in three of the four subject model counters. The bugs led to crashes, segmentation faults, incorrect model counts, and resource exhaustion by the solvers. Two of the tools were corrected subsequent to the bug reports we submitted based on our study, whereas the bugs we reported in the third tool were deemed by the tool authors to not require a fix.\",\"PeriodicalId\":267160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3324884.3416563\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3324884.3416563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
TestMC
Model counting is the problem for finding the number of solutions to a formula over a bounded universe. This is a classic problem in computer science that has seen many recent advances in techniques and tools that tackle it. These advances have led to applications of model counting in many domains, e.g., quantitative program analysis, reliability, and security. Given the sheer complexity of the underlying problem, today's model counters employ sophisticated algorithms and heuristics, which result in complex tools that must be heavily optimized. Therefore, establishing the correctness of implementations of model counters necessitates rigorous testing. This experience paper presents an empirical study on testing industrial strength model counters by applying the principles of differential and metamorphic testing together with bounded exhaustive input generation and input minimization. We embody these principles in the TestMC framework, and apply it to test four model counters, including three state-of-the-art model counters from three different classes. Specifically, we test the exact model counters projMC and dSharp, the probabilistic exact model counter Ganak, and the probabilistic approximate model counter ApproxMC. As subjects, we use three complementary test suites of input formulas. One suite consists of larger formulas that are derived from a wide range of real-world software design problems. The second suite consists of a bounded exhaustive set of small formulas that TestMC generated. The third suite consists of formulas generated using an off-the-shelf CNF fuzzer. TestMC found bugs in three of the four subject model counters. The bugs led to crashes, segmentation faults, incorrect model counts, and resource exhaustion by the solvers. Two of the tools were corrected subsequent to the bug reports we submitted based on our study, whereas the bugs we reported in the third tool were deemed by the tool authors to not require a fix.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ImpAPTr PerfCI STIFA Prober SADT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1