Test-Case Generator Extracts Counterexamples From Failed Proofs
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The challenge lies in bridging the gap between program proofs and the identification of specific test cases that cause a program to fail, as program testing is easier to conduct but does not guarantee correctness, while program proving guarantees correctness but is difficult to obtain successfully.
Innovation Solution
A method and tool for generating failing tests based on counterexamples from proof failures, using a test-case generator that extracts context and test data from erroneous functions and counterexamples, to create test cases that can identify and rectify bugs in computer-executable instructions.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If program testing is used to verify software correctness, then it is easier to conduct and provides concrete failure information, but it does not guarantee correctness of the software
Solution Approach 1:
The patent combines program testing and program proving into a unified verification system. When proof verification fails, the system automatically generates tests from counterexamples, merging the rigor of formal proofs with the concrete diagnostic value of tests. This allows the verification process to benefit from both mathematical certainty and practical test-driven debugging.
Solution Approach 2:
Counterexamples serve as an intermediary between failed proofs and test generation. The counterexample extraction module translates abstract proof failures into concrete test cases that can be executed and used for debugging, bridging the gap between formal verification and practical testing.
2Reliability
If program proving is used to guarantee software correctness, then mathematical certainty is achieved, but it is difficult to obtain successful proofs and provides no concrete indication of underlying problems
Solution Approach 1:
Counterexamples act as an intermediary that translates abstract proof failures into actionable test cases. When a proof fails, the counterexample extraction module generates concrete input values and execution traces that point to the specific location and nature of the error, making debugging feasible without requiring successful formal proofs.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements feedback by using test results to guide further proof attempts. Failed tests provide concrete information about where the program violates its specification, allowing developers to refine their proofs or correct the code based on specific failure scenarios rather than abstract proof failures.
3Productivity
If traditional testing methodologies are used to develop test cases, then test plans can be created based on system design, but the overwhelming number of test scenarios makes the process inefficient
Solution Approach 1:
The system extracts only the relevant test scenarios needed to expose failures, rather than generating or executing all possible test cases. By focusing on counterexamples from proof failures, it isolates the specific input combinations that are most likely to reveal bugs, dramatically reducing the effective test suite size while maintaining verification effectiveness.
Solution Approach 2:
The verification system is self-service in that it automatically generates its own test cases from proof failures without requiring manual test plan development. The counterexample extraction and test generation modules autonomously create targeted tests based on the program's specification and actual execution behavior, eliminating the need for extensive manual testing effort.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for verifying a set of computer-executable instructions using at least one failing test generated by a test-case generator is disclosed herein. The method comprises verifying the set of computer-executable instructions by a verification module using a plurality of predefined verification conditions; determining if the verification is successful; in response to successful verification, label the set of computer-executable instructions as successful; and in response to unsuccessful verification, generate at least one counterexample, with respect to a proof failure and corresponding to at least one failed verification condition of the plurality of the predefined verification conditions, and generate a failing test, by a test-case generator, based on at least one counterexample. A program verification tool for testing the set of computer-executable instructions is also disclosed.