Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 77 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 33 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 25 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 75 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 220 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 465 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A Failed Proof Can Yield a Useful Test (2208.09873v4)

Published 21 Aug 2022 in cs.SE

Abstract: A successful automated program proof is, in software verification, the ultimate triumph. In practice, however, the road to such success is paved with many failed proof attempts. Unlike a failed test, which provides concrete evidence of an actual bug in the program, a failed proof leaves the programmer in the dark. Can we instead learn something useful from it? The work reported here takes advantage of the rich internal information that some automatic provers collect about the program when attempting a proof. If the proof fails, the Proof2Test tool presented in this article uses the counterexample generated by the prover (specifically, the SMT solver underlying the proof environment Boogie, used in the AutoProof system to perform correctness proofs of contract-equipped Eiffel programs) to produce a failed test, which provides the programmer with immediately exploitable information to correct the program. The discussion presents the Proof2Test tool and demonstrates the application of the ideas and tool to a collection of representative examples.

Citations (2)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)