How testing helps to diagnose proof failures
From MaRDI portal
Recommendations
- Instrumenting a weakest precondition calculus for counterexample generation
- Predicting failures of and repairing inductive proof attempts
- Proving Programs Incorrect Using a Sequent Calculus for Java Dynamic Logic
- Formal Approaches to Software Testing
- Automated flaw detection in algebraic specifications
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3574936 (Why is no real title available?)
- Collaborative verification and testing with explicit assumptions
- Compositional may-must program analysis: unleashing the power of alternation
- Computer Aided Verification
- Could We Have Chosen a Better Loop Invariant or Method Contract?
- Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking
- Counterexample-guided focus
- Counterexample-guided synthesis of observation predicates
- Efficient generation of restricted growth words
- Finding Counter Examples in Induction Proofs
- Generating Unit Tests from Formal Proofs
- Interactive theorem proving and program development. Coq'Art: the calculus of inductive constructions. Foreword by Gérard Huet and Christine Paulin-Mohring.
This page was built for publication: How testing helps to diagnose proof failures
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1624590)