Symmetry-Aware Predicate Abstraction
for Shared-Variable Concurrent Programs
(Extended Technical Report)

arXiv:1102.2330v1 [cs.PL] 11 Feb 2011

Alastair Donaldson, Alexander Kaiser, Daniel Kroening, and Thomas Wahl
Oxford University Computing Laboratory, United Kingdom

Abstract. Predicate abstraction is a key enabling technology for applying finitestate model checkers to programs written in mainstream languages. It has been
used very successfully for debugging sequential system-level C code. Although
model checking was originally designed for analyzing concurrent systems, there
is little evidence of fruitful applications of predicate abstraction to shared-variable
concurrent software. The goal of this paper is to close this gap. We have developed a symmetry-aware predicate abstraction strategy: it takes into account
the replicated structure of C programs that consist of many threads executing
the same procedure, and generates a Boolean program template whose multithreaded execution soundly overapproximates the concurrent C program. State
explosion during model checking parallel instantiations of this template can now
be absorbed by exploiting symmetry. We have implemented our method in the
S ATA BS predicate abstraction framework, and demonstrate its superior performance over alternative approaches on a large range of synchronization programs.

1 Introduction
Concurrent software model checking is one of the most challenging problems facing
the verification community today. Not only does software generally suffer from data
state explosion. Concurrent software in particular is susceptible to state explosion due
to the need to track arbitrary thread interleavings, whose number grows exponentially
with the number of executing threads.
Predicate abstraction [1] was introduced as a way of dealing with data state explosion: the program state is approximated via the values of a finite number of predicates over the program variables. Predicate abstraction turns C programs into finite-state
Boolean programs [2], which can be model checked. Since insufficiently many predicates can cause spurious verification results, predicate abstraction is typically embedded into a counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) framework [3]. The
feasibility of the overall approach has been convincingly demonstrated for sequential
software by the success of the S LAM project at Microsoft, which was able to discover
numerous control-dominated errors in low-level operating system code [4].
The majority of concurrent software is written using mainstream APIs such as
POSIX threads (pthreads) in C/C++, or using a combination of language and library
support, such as the Thread class, Runnable interface and synchronized construct in
Java. Typically, multiple threads are spawned — up front or dynamically, in response to

varying system load levels — to execute a given procedure in parallel, communicating
via shared global variables. For such shared-variable concurrent programs, predicate
abstraction success stories similar to that of S LAM are few and far between. The bottleneck is the exponential dependence of the generated state space on the number of
running threads, which, if not addressed, permits exhaustive exploration of such programs only for trivial thread counts. The key to obtaining scalability is to exploit the
symmetry naturally exhibited by these programs, namely their invariance under permutations of the participating threads.
Fortunately, much progress has recently been made on analyzing replicated Boolean
programs, where a non-recursive Boolean template program is executed concurrently
by many threads [5–7]. In this paper, we present an approach to predicate-abstracting
concurrent programs that leverages this recent progress. More precisely:
– We describe a scheme to translate a non-recursive C program P with shared (globalscope) and local (procedure-scope) variables into a Boolean program B such that
the n-thread Boolean program, denoted Bn , soundly overapproximates the n-thread
C program, denoted Pn . We call such an abstraction method symmetry-aware.
– Our method permits predicates over arbitrary C program variables, local or global.
We illustrate below the ramifications of this objective.
We also show in this paper how our approach can be implemented for C-like languages,
complete with pointers and aliasing, and discuss the issues of spurious error detection
and predicate refinement. In the rest of the Introduction, however, we illustrate why
approaching the above two main goals naı̈vely can render abstraction unsound, creating
the danger of missing bugs, which defies the purpose of reliable program verification.
A remark on notation: In program listings, we use == for the comparison operator,
while = denotes assignment (as in C). Concurrent threads are assumed to interleave with
statement-level granularity; see the discussion in the Conclusion on this subject.
1.1 Predicate Abstraction using Mixed Predicates
The Boolean program B to be built from the C program P will consist of Boolean
variables, one per predicate as usual. Since B is to be executed by parallel threads,
its variables have to be partitioned into “shared” and “local”. As these variables track
the values of various predicates over C program variables, the “shared” and “local”
attributes clearly depend on the attributes of the C variables a predicate is formulated
over. We therefore classify predicates as follows.
Definition 1 A local predicate refers solely to local C program variables. Analogously,
a shared predicate refers solely to shared variables. A mixed predicate is neither local
nor shared.
We reasonably assume that each predicate refers to at least one program variable.
A mixed predicate thus refers to both local and shared variables, and the above classification partitions the set of predicates into the three categories.
Given this classification, consider a local predicate φ, which can change only as a
result of a thread changing one of its local C variables; a change that is not visible to any

other thread. This locality is inherited by the Boolean program if predicate φ is tracked
by a local Boolean variable. Similarly, shared predicates are naturally tracked by shared
Boolean variables.
For a mixed predicate, the decision whether it should be tracked in the shared or in
the local space of the Boolean program is non-obvious. Consider first the following program P and the corresponding generated Boolean program B, which tracks the mixed
predicate s != l in a local Boolean variable b:
0: shared int s = 0;

P:

local int l = 1;
1: assert s != l;
2: ++s;

0: local bool b = 1;

B:

1: assert b;
2: b = b ? ⋆ : 1;

Consider the program P2 , a two-thread instantiation of P. It is easy to see that execution of P2 can lead to an assertion violation, while the corresponding concurrent
Boolean program B2 is correct. (In fact, Bn is correct for any n > 0.) As a result,
B2 is an unsound abstraction for P2 . Consider now the following program P′ and its
Boolean abstraction B′ , which tracks the mixed predicate s == l in a shared Boolean
variable b:
s = 0;
bool t = 1;
int l = 0;
B′ :
t ↔ (s == l);
t;
= 0;

0: shared int

shared
local
P′ :
1: assert
2: assume
3: ++l , t

0: shared bool b = 1;

shared bool t = 1;
1: assert t ↔ b;
2: assume t;
3: b , t = ( b ? 0 : ⋆ ) , 0;

Execution of (P′ )2 leads to an assertion violation if the first thread executes P′ without interruption, while (B′ )2 is correct. We conclude that (B′ )2 is unsound for (P′ )2 .
The unsoundness can be eliminated by making b local in B′ ; an analogous reasoning
removes the unsoundness in B as an abstraction for P. It is clear from these examples,
however, that in general a predicate of the form s == l that genuinely depends on s
and l cannot be tracked by a shared or a local variable without further amendments to
the abstraction process.
At this point it may be useful to pause for a moment and consider whether, instead
of designing solutions that deal with mixed predicates, we may not be better off by
banning them, relying solely on shared and local predicates. Such restrictions on the
choice of predicates render very simple bug-free programs unverifiable using predicate
abstraction, including the following program P′′ :
0: shared int r = 0;

P′′ :

shared int s = 0;
local int l = 0;
1: ++r;
2: if (r == 1) then
3:
f ();

f ():

4: ++s, ++l;
5: assert s == l;
6: goto 4;

The assertion in P′′ cannot be violated, no matter how many threads execute P, since
no thread but the first will manage to execute f . It is easy to prove that, over a set of
non-mixed predicates (i.e. no predicate refers to both l and one of {s, r}), no invariant
is computable that is strong enough to prove s == l. We have included such a proof in
Appendix B.
A technically simple solution to all these problems is to instantiate the template P
n times, once for each thread, into programs {P1 , . . . , Pn }, in which indices 1, . . . , n
are attached to the local variables of the template, indicating the variable’s owner. Every
predicate that refers to local variables is similarly instantiated n times. The new program
has two features: (i) all its variables, having unambiguous names, can be declared at the
global scope and are thus shared, including the original global program variables, and
(ii) it is multi-threaded, but the threads no longer execute the same code. Feature (i)
allows the new program to be predicate-abstracted in the conventional fashion: each
predicate is stored in a shared Boolean variable. Feature (ii), however, entails that the
new program is no longer symmetric. Model checking it will therefore have to bear the
brunt of concurrency state explosion. Such an approach, which we refer to as symmetryoblivious, will not scale beyond a very small number of threads.
To summarize our findings: Mixed predicates are necessary to prove properties for
even very simple programs. On the other hand, they cannot be tracked using standard
thread-local or shared variables. Disambiguating local variables avoids mixed predicates, but destroys symmetry. It is the goal of this paper to design a solution without the
need to compromise.

2 Symmetry-Aware Predicate Abstraction
In order to illustrate our method, let P be a program defined over a set of variables V
that is partitioned in the form V = VS ∪VL into shared and local variables. The parallel
execution of P by n threads is a program defined over the shared variables and n copies
of the local variables, one copy for each thread. A thread is nondeterministically chosen
to be active, i.e. to execute a statement of P, potentially modifying the shared variables,
and its own local variables, but nothing else. In this section, we ignore the specific
syntax of statements, and we do not consider language features that introduce aliasing,
such as pointers (these are the subject of Section 3). Therefore, an assignment to a
variable v cannot modify a variable other than v, and an expression φ depends only on
the variables occurring in it, which we refer to as Loc(φ) = {v : v occurs in φ}.
2.1 Mixed Predicates and Notify-All Updates
Our goal is to translate the program P into a Boolean program B such that, for any n,
a suitably defined parallel execution of B by n threads overapproximates the parallel
execution of P by n threads. Let E = {φ1 , . . . , φm } be a set of predicates over P, i.e.
a set of Boolean expressions over variables in V . We say φi is
shared if Loc(φi ) ⊆ VS ,
local if Loc(φi ) ⊆ VL , and
mixed otherwise, i.e. Loc(φi ) ∩ VL 6= ∅ and Loc(φi ) ∩ VS 6= ∅.

We declare, in B, Boolean variables {b1 , . . . , bm }; the intention is that bi tracks the
value of φi during abstract execution of P. We partition these Boolean variables into
shared and local by stipulating that bi is shared if φi is shared; otherwise bi is local.
In particular, mixed predicates are tracked in local variables. Intuitively, the value
of a mixed predicate φi depends on the thread it is evaluated over. Declaring bi shared
would thus necessarily lose information. Declaring it local does not lose information,
but, as the example in the Introduction has shown, is insufficient to guarantee a sound
abstraction. We will see shortly how to solve this problem.
Each statement in P is now translated into a corresponding statement in B. Statements related to flow of control are handled using techniques from standard predicate
abstraction [2]; the distinction between shared, mixed and local predicates does not
matter here. Consider an assignment to a variable v in P and a Boolean variable b
of B with associated predicate φ. We first check whether variable v affects φ, written
affects(v, φ). Given that in this section we assume no aliasing, this is the case exactly
if v ∈ Loc(φ). If affects(v, φ) evaluates to false, b does not change. Otherwise, code
needs to be generated to update b. This code needs to take into account the “flavors” of
v and φ, which give rise to three different flavors of updates of b:
shared update: Suppose v and φ are both shared. An assignment to v is visible to all
threads, so the truth of φ is modified for all threads. This is reflected in B: by our
stipulation above, the shared predicate φ is tracked by the shared variable b. Thus,
we simply generate code to update b according to standard sequential predicate
abstraction rules; the new value of b is shared among all threads.
local update: Suppose v is local and φ is local or mixed. An assignment to v is visible
only by the active (executing) thread, so the truth of φ is modified only for the
active thread. This also is reflected in B: by our stipulation above, the local or
mixed predicate φ is tracked by the local variable b. Again, sequential predicate
abstraction rules suffice; the value of b changes only for the active thread.
notify-all update: Suppose v is shared and φ is mixed. An assignment to v is visible
to all threads, so the truth of φ is modified for all threads. This is not reflected in B:
by our stipulation above, the mixed predicate φ is tracked by the local variable b,
which will be updated only by the active thread. We will solve this problem by (i)
generating code to update b according to standard sequential predicate abstraction
rules, and (ii) notifying all passive threads of the modification of the shared variable
v, so as to allow them to update their local copy of b.
We write must notify(v, φ) if the shared variable v affects the mixed predicate φ:
must notify(v, φ)

=

affects(v, φ) ∧ v ∈ VS ∧ (Loc(φ) ∩ VL 6= ∅) .

This formula evaluates to true exactly when it is necessary to notify passive threads of
an update to v. What remains to be discussed in the rest of this section is how notifications are implemented in B.
2.2 Implementing Notify-All Updates
We pause to recap some terminology and notation from sequential predicate abstraction [2]. Given a set E = {φ1 , . . . , φm } of predicates tracked by variables {b1 , . . . , bm },

an assignment statement st is translated into the following code, in parallel for each
i ∈ {1, . . . , m}:
if
F (WP ( φi , st)) then bi = 1
else if F (WP (¬φi , st)) then bi = 0
(1)
else
bi = ⋆ .
Here, ⋆ is the nondeterministic choice expression, WP the weakest precondition operator, and F the operator that strengthens an arbitrary predicate to a disjunction of
cubes over the bi . For example, with predicate φ :: (l < 10) tracked by variable b,
E = {φ} and statement st :: ++l, we obtain F (WP (φ, st )) = F (l < 9) = false and
F (WP (¬φ, st )) = F (l >= 9) = (l >= 10) = ¬φ, so that (1) reduces to
b = ( b ? ⋆ : 0 ).
In general, (1) is often abbreviated using the assignment
bi = choose(F (WP (φi , st )), F (WP (¬φi , st))) ,
where choose(x, y) returns 1 if x evaluates to true, 0 if (¬x) ∧ y evaluates to true,
and ⋆ otherwise. Abstraction of control flow guards uses the G operator, which is dual
to F : G(φ) = ¬F (¬(φ)).
Returning to symmetry-aware predicate abstraction, if must notify(v, φ) evaluates
to true for φ and v, predicate φ is mixed and thus tracked in B by some local Boolean
variable, say b. Predicate-abstracting an assignment of the form v = χ requires updating the active thread’s copy of b, as well as broadcasting an instruction to all passive
threads to update their copy of b, in view of the new value of v. This is implemented using two assignments, which are executed in parallel. The first assignment is as follows:
b=choose(F (WP (φ, v = χ)), F (WP (¬φ, v = χ))) .

(2)

This assignment has standard predicate abstraction semantics:1 variable b of the active
thread is updated by computing the weakest precondition of predicate φ and its negation
with respect to the statement v = χ, applying the strengthening operator F to make
the precondition expressible over the existing predicates, and by applying the choose
operator, which may introduce nondeterminism. Note that, since expression χ involves
only local variables of the active thread and shared variables, only predicates over those
variables are involved in the defining expression for b.
The second assignment looks similar, but introduces a new symbol:
[b]=choose(F (WP ([φ], v = χ)), F (WP (¬[φ], v = χ))) .

(3)

The notation [b] stands for the copy of local variable b owned by some passive thread.
Similarly, [φ] stands for the expression defining predicate φ, but with every local variable occurring in the expression replaced by the copy owned by the passive thread; this
is the predicate φ in the context of the passive thread. Weakest precondition computation is with respect to [φ], while the assignment v = χ, as an argument to WP , is
1

Our presentation is in terms of the Cartesian abstraction [8], as used in [2], but our method in
general is independent of the abstraction used.

unchanged: v is shared, and local variables appearing in the defining expression χ must
be interpreted as local variables of the active thread. Assignment (3) has the effect of
updating variable b in every passive thread. We call Boolean programs involving assignments of the form [b] = ... Boolean broadcast programs; a formal syntax and
semantics for such programs is given in Appendix A.
Let us illustrate the above technique using a canonical example: consider the assignment s = l, for shared and local variables s and l, and define the mixed predicate
φ :: (s == l). The first part of the above parallel assignment simplifies to b = true.
For the second part, we obtain:
[b] = choose(F (WP (s==[l], s=l)), F (WP (¬(s==[l]), s=l))) .
Computing weakest preconditions, this reduces to:
[b] = choose(F (l==[l]), F (¬(l==[l]))) .
Precision of the Abstraction. To evaluate this expression further, we have to decide on
the set of predicates available to the F operator to express the preconditions. If this set
includes only predicates over the shared variables and the local variables of the passive
thread that owns [b], the predicate l == [l] is not expressible and must be strengthened to false. The above assignment then simplifies to [b] = choose(false, false), i.e.
[b] = ⋆. The mixed predicates owned by passive threads are essentially invalidated
when the active thread modifies a shared variable occurring in such predicates, resulting in a very imprecise abstraction.
We can exploit information stored in predicates local to other threads, to increase the
precision of the abstraction. For maximum precision one could make all other threads’
predicates available to the strengthening operator F . This happens in the symmetryoblivious approach sketched in the Introduction, where local and mixed predicates are
physically replicated and declared at the global scope and can thus be made available
to F . Not surprisingly, in practice, replicating predicates in this way renders the abstraction prohibitively expensive. We analyze this experimentally in Section 5.
A compromise which we have found to work well in practice (again, demonstrated
in Section 5) is to equip operator F with all shared predicates, all predicates of the
passive thread owning [b], and also predicates of the active thread. This arrangement is
intuitive since the update of a passive thread’s local variable [b] is due to an assignment
performed by some active thread. Applying this compromise to our canonical example:
if both s == [l] and s == l evaluate to true before the assignment s=l, we can conclude that [l] == l before the assignment, and hence s == [l] after the assignment.
Using ⊕ to denote exclusive-or, the assignment to [b] becomes:
[b] = choose([b] ∧ b, [b] ⊕ b) .
2.3 The Predicate Abstraction Algorithm
We now show how our technique for soundly handling mixed predicates is used in
an algorithm for predicate abstracting C-like programs. To present the algorithm compactly, we assume a language with three types of statement: assignments, nondeterministic gotos, and assumptions. Control-flow can be modelled via a combination of gotos
and assumes, in the standard way.

Algorithm 1 Predicate abstraction
Input: Program template P, set of predicates {φ1 , . . . , φm }
Output: Boolean program B over variables b1 , . . . , bm
1: for each statement d: stmt of P do
2:
if stmt is v = ψ then
3:
{i1 , . . . , if } ← {i | 1 ≤ i ≤ m ∧ affects (v, φi )}
4:
{j1 , . . . , jg } ← {j | 1 ≤ i ≤ m ∧ must notify(v, φi )}




choose(F(WP(φi1 , v=ψ)), F(WP (¬φi1 , v=ψ)))
bi1


 .. 
..
,
 .  = 
.
choose(F(WP(φif , v=ψ)), F(WP (¬φif , v=ψ)))
bif
5:
output d:

 

choose(F(WP ([φj1 ], v=ψ)), F(WP(¬[φj1 ], v=ψ)))
[bj1 ]

 ..  
..

 . =
.
choose(F(WP ([φjg ], v=ψ)), F(WP(¬[φjg ], v=ψ)))
[bjg ]
6:
else if stmt is goto d1 , . . . , dm then
7:
output d: goto d1 , . . . , dm ;
8:
else if stmt is assume φ then
9:
output d: assume G(φ);

Algorithm 1 processes an input program template of this form and outputs a corresponding Boolean broadcast program template. Statements goto and assume are handled as in standard predicate abstraction: the former are left unchanged, while the latter
are translated directly except that the guard of an assume statement is expressed over
Boolean program variables using the G operator (see Section 2.2).
The interesting part of the algorithm for us is the translation of assignment statements. For each assignment, a corresponding parallel assignment to Boolean program
variables is generated. The affects and must notify predicates are used to decide for
which Boolean variables regular and broadcast assignments are required, respectively.

3 Symmetry-Aware Predicate Abstraction with Aliasing
In Section 2 we outlined our novel predicate abstraction technique, ignoring complications introduced by pointers and aliasing. We now explain how symmetry-aware predicate abstraction is realized in practice, for C programs that manipulate pointers. We
impose one restriction: we do not consider programs where a shared pointer variable, or
a pointer variable local to thread i, can point to a variable local to thread j (with j 6= i).
This scenario arises only when a thread copies the address of a stack or thread-local
variable to the shared state. This unusual programming style allows thread i to directly
modify the local state of thread j at the C program level, breaking the asynchronous
model of computation assumed by our method.
For ease of presentation we consider the scenario where program variables either
have a base type (e.g. int or float), or pointer type (e.g. int* or float**). Our method
can be extended to handle records, arrays and heap-allocated memory in a straightfor-

ward but laborious manner. As in [2], we also assume that input programs have been
processed so that l-values involve at most one pointer dereference.
Alias information is important in deciding, once and for all, whether predicates
should be classed as local, mixed or shared. For example, let p be a local variable
of type int*, and consider predicate φ :: (*p == 1). Clearly φ is not shared since it
depends on local variable p. Whether φ should be regarded as a local or mixed predicate
depends on whether p may point to the shared state: we regard φ as local if p can
never point to a shared variable, otherwise φ is classed as mixed. Alias information also
lets us determine whether a variable update may affect the truth of a given predicate,
and whether it is necessary to notify other threads of this update. We now show how
these intuitions can be formally integrated with our predicate abstraction technique.
This involves suitably refining the notions of local, shared and mixed predicates, and the
definitions of affects and must notify introduced in Section 2 and used by Algorithm 1.
3.1 Aliasing, Locations of Expressions, and Targets of l-values
We assume the existence of a sound pointer alias analysis for concurrent programs,
e.g. [9], which we treat as a black box. This procedure conservatively tells us whether
a shared variable with pointer type may refer to a local variable. As discussed at the
start of Section 3, we reject programs where this is the case.2 Otherwise, for a program
template P over variables V , alias analysis yields a relation 7→d ⊆ V × V for each
program location d. For v, w ∈ V , if v 67→d w then v provably does not point to w at d.
For an expression φ and program point d, we write loc(φ, d) for the set of variables
that it may be necessary to access in order to evaluate φ at d, during an arbitrary program
run. The precision of loc(φ, d) is directly related to the precision of alias analysis.
Definition 2 For a constant value z, v ∈ V and k > 0, we define:
loc(z, d) = ∅

loc(&v, d) = ∅
loc(v, d) = {v}
S
loc(|* .{z
. . *} v, d) = {v} ∪ w∈V {loc(|* .{z
. . *} w, d) | v 7→d w}
k

k−1

For other compound expressions, loc(φ, d) is defined recursively in the obvious way.
Definition 2 captures the fact that evaluating a pointer dereference *v involves reading
both v and the variable to which v points, while evaluating an “address-of” expression,
&v, requires no variable accesses: addresses of variables are fixed at compile time.
Definition 3 For an expression φ, Loc(φ) is the set of variables that may need to be
accessed to evaluate φ at an arbitrary program point during an arbitrary program run:
[
Loc(φ) =
loc(φ, d).
1≤d≤k

Note how this definition of Loc generalizes that used in Section 2.
2

This also eliminates the possibility of thread i pointing to variables in thread j 6= i: the address
of a variable in thread j would have to be communicated to thread i via a shared variable.

Definition 4 We write targets(x, d) for the set of variables that may be modified by
writing to l-value x at program point d:
targets(v, d) = {v}

targets(*v, d) = {w ∈ V | v 7→d w}

Note that we have targets(*v, d) 6= loc(*v, d). This is because writing through *v
modifies only the variable to which v points, while reading the value of *v involves
reading the value of v, to determine which variable w is pointed to by v, and then
reading the value of w.
3.2 Shared, Local and Mixed Predicates in the Presence of Aliasing
In the presence of pointers, we define the notion of a predicate φ being shared, local,
or mixed exactly as in Section 2.1, only with the generalization of Loc presented in
Definition 3. In Section 2.1, without pointers, we could classify φ purely syntactically,
based on whether any shared variables appear in φ. In the presence of pointers, we must
classify φ with respect to alias information; our definition of Loc takes care of this.
Recall from Section 2.1 that we defined affects(v, φ) = (v ∈ Loc(φ)) to indicate
that updating variable v may affect the truth of predicate φ. In the presence of pointers,
this definition no longer suffices. The truth of φ may be affected by assigning to l-value
x if x may alias some variable on which φ depends. Whether this is the case depends
on the program point at which the update occurs. Definitions 2 and 4 of loc and targets
allow us to express this:
affects(x, φ, d) = (targets(x, d) ∩ loc(φ, d) 6= ∅).
We also need to determine whether an update affects the truth of a predicate only
for the thread executing the update, or for all threads. The definition of must notify
presented in Section 2.1 needs to be adapted to take aliasing into account. At first sight,
it seems that we must simply parameterise affects according to program location, and
replace the conjunct v ∈ VS with the condition that x may target some shared variable:
must notify (x, φ, d) = affects(x, φ, d) ∧ (Loc(φ) ∩ VL 6= ∅)
∧ (targets(x, d) ∩ VS 6= ∅) .
However, this is unnecessarily strict. We can refine the above definition to minimise the
extent to which notifications are required, as follows:
must notify(x, φ, d) = (targets(x, d) ∩ Loc(φ) ∩ VS 6= ∅) ∧ (Loc(φ) ∩ VL 6= ∅) .
The refined definition avoids the need for thread notification in the following scenario. Suppose we have shared variables s and t, local variable l, local pointer variable
p, and predicate φ :: (s > l). Consider an assignment to *p at program point d. Suppose that alias analysis tells us exactly p 7→d t and p 7→d l. The only shared variable
that can be modified by assigning through *p at program point d is t, and the truth of
φ does not depend on t. Thus the assignment does not require a “notify-all” with respect to φ. Working through the definitions, we find that our refinement of must notify

correctly determines this, while the direct extension of must notify from Section 2.1
would lead to an unnecessary “notify-all”.
The predicate abstraction algorithm, Algorithm 1, can now be adapted to handle
pointers: parameter d is simply added to the uses of affects and must notify. Handling
of pointers in weakest preconditions works as in standard predicate abstraction [2],
using Morris’s general axiom of assignment [10].

4 Closing the CEGAR Loop
So far we have presented a novel technique for predicate-abstracting symmetric concurrent programs. We have integrated our method with the S ATA BS CEGAR-based
verifier [11], using the Cartesian abstraction method [8] and the maximum cube length
approximation [2]. We now sketch how we have adapted the other phases of the CEGAR loop: model checking, simulation and refinement, to accurately handle concurrency; a detailed description of the entire process is left to an extended version of this
paper.
Model checking Boolean broadcast programs. Our predicate abstraction technique
generates a concurrent Boolean broadcast program. The extended syntax and semantics
for broadcasts mean that we cannot simply use existing concurrent Boolean program
model checkers, such as B OOM [12] or B OPPO [13], for the model checking phase of
the CEGAR loop. We have implemented a prototype extension of B OOM, which we call
B-B OOM. B-B OOM extends the counter abstraction-based symmetry reduction capabilities of B OOM [5] to support broadcast operations. Symbolic image computation for
broadcast assignments is significantly more expensive than image computation for standard assignments. In the context of B OOM it involves 1) converting states from counter
representation to a form where the individual local states of threads are stored using
distinct BDD variables, 2) computing the intersection of n − 1 successor states, one
for each inactive thread paired with the active thread, and 3) transforming the resulting state representation back to counter form using Shannon expansion. The expense of
image computation for broadcasts motivates the careful analysis we have presented in
Sections 2 and 3 for determining tight conditions under which broadcasts are required.
Simulation. To determine the authenticity of abstract error traces reported by B-B OOM
we have extended the S ATA BS simulator. The existing simulator extracts the control
flow from the trace. This is mapped back to the original C program and translated into
a propositional formula (using standard techniques such as single static assignment
conversion and bitvector interpretation of variables). The error is spurious exactly if
this formula is unsatisfiable. In the concurrent case, the control flow information of an
abstract trace includes which thread executes actively in each step. We have extended
the simulator so that each local variable involved in a step is replaced by a fresh indexed
version, indicating the executing thread that owns the variable. The result is a program
trace over the replicated C program Pn , which can be directly checked using a SAT
solver.
As an example, suppose function f from program P′′ (Introduction) is executed by
2 threads (for this example, we ignore the rest of P′′ ). The model checker may return

the error trace shown below on the left, which is converted into the non-threaded form
shown on the right.
T1:
T1:
T2:
T2:

++s,++l;
assert s == l;
++s,++l;
assert s == l;

++s,++l1 ;
assert s == l1 ;
++s,++l2 ;
assert s == l2 ;

The trace on the right is translated into SSA form and finally into the integer arithmetic
formula below, which is shown to be satisfiable, so the error is real.
s0 = 0 ∧ l10 = 0 ∧ l20 = 0 ∧ s1 = s0 + 1 ∧ l11 = l10 + 1
∧ s2 = s1 + 1 ∧ l21 = l20 + 1 ∧ s2 6= l21 ,
Note that broadcast operations do not affect simulation: although, at the Boolean
program level, a broadcast may change the state of multiple threads simultaneously, the
corresponding C program statement is simply an update to a shared variable executed
by a single thread.
Refinement. Our implementation performs refinement by extracting new predicates
from counterexamples via weakest precondition calculations. This standard method requires a small modification in our context: weakest precondition calculations generate
predicates over shared variables, and local variables of specific threads. For example, if
thread 1 branches according to a condition such as l < s, where l and s are local and
shared, respectively, weakest precondition calculations generate the predicate l1 < s,
where l1 is thread 1’s copy of l. Because our predicate abstraction technique works at
the template program level, we cannot add this predicate directly. Instead, we generalize
such predicates by removing thread indices. Hence in the above example, we add the
mixed predicate l < s, for all threads.
An alternative approach is to refine the abstract transition relation associated with
the Cartesian abstraction based on infeasible steps in the abstract counterexample [14].
We do not yet perform such refinement, due to challenge of correctly refining abstract
transitions involving broadcast assignments. This involves some subtle issues which
will require further research to solve.

5 Experimental Results
We evaluate the S ATA BS-based implementation of our techniques using a set of 14
concurrent C programs. We consider benchmarks where threads synchronize via locks
(lock-based), or in a lock-free manner via atomic compare-and-swap (cas) or test-andset (tas) instructions. The benchmarks are as follows:3
– Increment, Inc./Dec. (lock-based and cas-based) A counter, concurrently incremented, or incremented and decremented, by multiple threads [15]
– Prng (lock-based and cas-based) Concurrent pseudorandom number generator [15]
3

All benchmarks and tools are available online: http://www.cprover.org/SAPA

– Stack (lock-based and cas-based) Thread-safe stack implementation, supporting
concurrent pushes and pops, adapted from an Open Source IBM implementation4
of an algorithm described in [15]
– Tas Lock, Ticket Lock (tas-based) Concurrent lock implementations [16]
– FindMax, FindMaxOpt (lock-based and cas-based) Implementations of parallel
reduction operation [17] to find maximum element in array. FindMax is a basic
implementation, and FindMaxOpt and optimized version where threads reduce
communication by computing a partial maximum value locally
Mixed predicates were required for verification to succeed in all but two benchmarks: lock-based Prng, and lock-based Stack. For each benchmark, we consider verification of a simple safety property, specified via an assertion. We have also prepared
a buggy version of each benchmark, where an error is injected into the source code to
make it possible for this assertion to fail. We refer to correct and buggy versions of our
benchmarks as safe and unsafe, respectively.
All experiments are performed on a 3GHz Intel Xeon machine with 40 GB RAM,
running 64-bit Linux, with separate timeouts of 1h for the abstraction and model checking phases of the CEGAR loop. Predicate abstraction uses a maximum cube length of 3
for all examples, and MiniSat 2 (compiled with full optimizations) is used for predicate
abstraction and counterexample simulation.

Symmetry Oblivious
Benchmark n #φ Abs (s) MC (s)
Increment
6 14
13
5
(lock-based) 8 18
29
152
9 20
40
789
10 22
56
T.O.
12 –
–
–
14 –
–
–
16 –
–
–
18 –
–
–
20 –
–
–
Increment
4 26
201
12
(cas-based) 5 32
94
358
6 38
190
T.O.
7 –
–
–
Inc./Dec.
4 26
71
6
(lock-based) 5 31
132
656
6 36
231
T.O.
Inc./Dec.
3 45
372
6
(cas-based) 4 58
872
4043
Tas Lock
4 28
9
114
(tas-based)
5 34
14
T.O.
6 –
–
–
Ticket Lock 2 22
554
1
(tas-based)
3 27 1319
3
4 32
T.O.
–
6 –
–
–
8 –
–
–

Symmetry Aware
#φ Abs (s) MC (s)
4
1
<1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
2
4
1
7
4
1
24
4
1
100
4
1
559
4
1 2882
8
6
1
8
6
13
8
6
116
8
6
997
11
11
2
11
11
50
11
11 1422
20
78
3
20
78
252
8
1
4
8
1
72
8
1
725
19
251
1
19
251
1
19
251
2
19
251
62
19
251 2839

Symmetry Oblivious
Benchmark n #φ Abs (s) MC (s)
Prng
6 57
69
21
(lock-based) 7 68
83
191
8 79
96
T.O.
16 –
–
–
26 –
–
–
Prng
3 32
29
<1
(cas-based)
4 47
40
12
5 62
57
1049
FindMax
6 6
5
30
(lock-based) 7 7
9
244
8 8
14
T.O.
16 –
–
–
25 –
–
–
FindMax
3 18
4
7
(cas-based)
4 24
8
407
FindMaxOpt 4 8
3
40
(lock-based) 5 10
6
1356
6 12
11
T.O.
7 –
–
–
FindMaxOpt 3 21
9
11
(cas-based)
4 28
15
1097
5 35
22
T.O.
Stack
3 16
<1
14
(lock-based) 4 17
<1
945
Stack
3 16
2
29
(cas-based)
4 21
8
3408

Symmetry Aware
#φ Abs (s) MC (s)
13
26
<1
13
26
1
13
26
2
13
26
142
13
26 3023
17
48
1
17
48
38
17
48 1832
1
<1
<1
1
<1
1
1
<1
1
1
<1
125
1
<1
3005
6
1
2
6
1
368
2
<1
3
2
<1
33
2
<1
269
2
<1
1773
7
3
2
7
3
61
7
3 1240
5
<1
8
5
<1
374
6
<1
14
6
<1
813

Table 1. Comparison of symmetry-aware and symmetry-oblivious predicate abstraction over our
benchmarks. For each configuration, the fastest abstraction and model checking times are in bold.
4

http://amino-cbbs.sourceforge.net

Symmetry-aware vs. symmetry-oblivious method. We evaluate the scalability of our
symmetry-aware predicate abstraction technique (SAPA) by comparing it against the
symmetry-oblivious predicate abstraction (SOPA) approach described in Section 1, for
verification of correct versions of our benchmarks. Recall that in SOPA, an n-thread
symmetric concurrent program is expanded so that variables for all threads are explicitly duplicated, and n copies of all non-shared predicate are generated. The expanded
program is then abstracted over the expanded set of predicates, using standard predicate
abstraction. This yields a Boolean program for each thread; the parallel composition of
these n Boolean programs is explored by a model checker. Because symmetry is not
exploited, and no broadcasts are required, any suitable model checker can be used.
We have tried both standard B OOM [5] (without symmetry reduction) and Cadence
SMV [18] to model check expanded Boolean programs. In all cases, we found B OOM
to be faster than SMV, thus we present results only for B OOM.
Table 1 presents the results of the comparison. For each benchmark and each approach we show, for interesting thread counts (including the largest thread count that
could be verified with each approach), the number of predicates required for verification and the elapsed time for predicate abstraction and model checking. For each configuration, the fastest abstraction and model checking times are shown in bold. Model
checking uses standard B OOM, without symmetry reduction (SOPA) and B-B OOM, our
novel extension to B OOM discussed in Section 4 (SAPA), respectively. Entries marked
T.O. indicate that a timeout occurred; succeeding cells are then marked ‘–’.
The results show that our novel SAPA technique significantly outperforms SOPA,
both in terms of abstraction and model checking time. The former can be attributed to
the fact that, with SOPA, the number of predicates grows according to the number of
threads considered, while with SAPA, this is thread count-independent. The latter is due
to the exploitation of template-level symmetry by B-B OOM.

Benchmark
Increment (lock-based)
Incr. (cas-based)
Incr./Dec. (lock-based)
Incr./Dec. (cas-based)
Tas Lock (tas-based)
Ticket Lock (tas-based)
Prng (lock-based)
Prng (cas-based)
FindMax (lock-based)
FindMax (cas-based)
FindMaxOpt (lock-based)
FindMaxOpt (cas-based)
Stack (lock-based)
Stack (cas)

Symmetry-Aware
Safe n Unsafe n
safe >10 unsafe 2
safe
7 unsafe 2
safe
6 unsafe 3
safe
4 unsafe 3
safe
7 unsafe 2
safe
8 unsafe 3
safe >10 unsafe 2
safe
5 unsafe 3
safe >10 unsafe 2
safe
4 unsafe 2
safe
7 unsafe 2
safe
5 unsafe 1
safe
4 unsafe 4
safe
4 unsafe 2

Mixed as local
Safe n Unsafe n
safe >10 error
2
safe
8
safe
5
safe >10
safe >10
safe
6
safe
8
safe
8 error
2
safe >10 unsafe
3
safe >10 unsafe
2
safe
7 unsafe
3
safe >10
safe >10
safe
5
safe
4
safe
7
safe
6
safe
5 unsafe
1
safe
4 unsafe
4
safe
4
safe
6

Mixed as shared
Safe n Unsafe n
safe 10 error 2
error
2 error 2
safe >10 unsafe 3
error
2 error 3
error
2 error 2
safe
5 unsafe 3
safe >10 unsafe 2
safe
6 unsafe 3
safe
2 error 2
safe
2
safe 1
error
2 error 2
error
2 unsafe 1
safe
4 unsafe 4
safe
4 error 2

Table 2. Comparison of sound and unsound approaches; incorrect results in bold.

Comparison with unsound methods. In Section 1, we described two naı̈ve solutions
to the mixed predicate problem: uniformly using local or shared Boolean variables to
represent mixed predicates, and then performing standard predicate abstraction. We de-

note these approaches mixed as local and mixed as shared, respectively. Although we
demonstrated theoretically in Section 1 that both methods are unsound, it is interesting
to see how they perform in practice. Table 2 shows the results of applying CEGARbased model checking to safe and unsafe versions of our benchmarks, using our sound
technique, and the unsound mixed as local and mixed as shared approaches. In all cases,
B-B OOM is used for model checking. For the sound technique, we show the largest
thread count for which we could prove correctness of each safe benchmark, and the
smallest thread count for which a bug was revealed in each unsafe benchmark. The
other columns illustrate how the unsound techniques differ from this, where “error” indicates a refinement failure: it was not possible extract further predicates from spurious
counterexamples. Bold entries indicate cases where the unsound approaches produce
incorrect, or inconclusive results.5 The number of cases where the unsound approaches
produce false negatives, or lead to refinement failure, suggest that little confidence can
be placed in these techniques, even for purposes of falsification. This justifies the more
sophisticated and, crucially, sound techniques developed in this paper.

6 Related Work and Conclusion
There exists a large body of work on the different stages of CEGAR-based program
analysis. We focus here on the abstraction stage, which is at the heart of this paper.
Predicate abstraction goes back to the foundational work by Graf and Saı̈di [1].
It was first presented for sequential programs in a mainstream language (C) by Ball,
Majumdar, Millstein, Rajamani [2] and implemented as part of the S LAM project. We
have found many of the optimizations suggested by [2] to be useful in our implementation as well. Although S LAM has had great success in finding real bugs in system-level
code, we are not aware of any extensions of it to concurrent programs (although this
option is mentioned by the authors). We attribute this to a large part to the infeasibility,
at the time, to handle realistic multi-threaded Boolean programs. We believe our own
work on B OOM [5] has made progress in this direction that has made it attractive again
to address concurrent predicate abstraction.
We are not aware of other work that presents solutions to the problem of “mixed
predicates”. Some approaches avoid it by syntactically disallowing such predicates,
e.g. [19], whose authors don’t discuss, however, the reasons for (or, indeed, the consequences of) doing so. In other work, “algorithmic circumstances” may make the treatment of such predicates unnecessary. The authors of [20], for example, use predicate
abstraction to finitely represent the environment of a thread in multi-threaded programs.
The “environment” consists of assumptions on how threads may manipulate the shared
state of the program, irrespective of their local state. Our case of replicated threads, in
which mixed predicates would constitute a problem, is only briefly mentioned in [20].
In [21], an approach is presented that handles recursive concurrent C programs. The
abstract transition system of a thread (a pushdown system) is formed over predicates
that are projected to the global or the local program variables and thus cannot compare
5

We never expect the unsound techniques to report conclusively that a safe benchmark is unsafe:
this would require demonstrating a concrete error trace in the original, safe, program.

“global against local” directly. As we have discussed, some reachability problems cannot be solved using such restricted predicates. We conjecture this problem is one of the
potential causes of non-termination in the algorithm of [21].
In conclusion, we mention that building a CEGAR-based verification strategy is a
tremendous effort, and our work so far can only be the beginning of such effort. We
have assumed a very strict (and unrealistic) memory model that guarantees atomicity at the statement level. One can work soundly with the former assumption by preprocessing input programs so that the shared state is accessed only via word-length
reads and writes, ensuring that all computation is performed using local variables. Extending our approach to weaker memory models, building on existing work in this
area [22, 23], is future work. Our plans also include a more sophisticated refinement
strategy, and a more detailed comparison with existing approaches that circumvent the
mixed-predicates problem using other means.

References
1. Susanne Graf and Hassen Saı̈di. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In CAV,
1997.
2. Thomas Ball, Rupak Majumdar, Todd D. Millstein, and Sriram K. Rajamani. Automatic
predicate abstraction of C programs. In PLDI, 2001.
3. Edmund Clarke, Orna Grumberg, Somesh Jha, Yuan Lu, and Helmut Veith. Counterexampleguided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM, 2003.
4. Thomas Ball and Sriram Rajamani. The SLAM project: debugging system software via static
analysis. In POPL, 2002.
5. Gerard Basler, Michele Mazzucchi, Thomas Wahl, and Daniel Kroening. Context-aware
counter abstraction. Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD), 2010.
6. Alexander Kaiser, Daniel Kroening, and Thomas Wahl. Dynamic cutoff detection in parameterized concurrent programs. In CAV, 2010.
7. Salvatore La Torre, Parthasarathy Madhusudan, and Gennaro Parlato. Model-checking parameterized concurrent programs using linear interfaces. In CAV, 2010.
8. Thomas Ball, Andreas Podelski, and Sriram Rajamani. Boolean and Cartesian abstraction
for model checking C programs. STTT, 2003.
9. Radu Rugina and Martin C. Rinard. Pointer analysis for multithreaded programs. In PLDI,
pages 77–90, 1999.
10. J.M. Morris. A general axiom of assignment. In Theoretical Foundations of Programming
Methodology, Lecture Notes of an International Summer School, pages 25–34. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, 1982.
11. Edmund Clarke, Daniel Kroening, Natasha Sharygina, and Karen Yorav. Predicate abstraction of ANSI-C programs using SAT. Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD), 2004.
12. Gerard Basler, Matthew Hague, Daniel Kroening, Luke Ong, Thomas Wahl, and Haoxian
Zhao. Boom: Taking Boolean program model checking one step further. In TACAS, 2010.
13. Byron Cook, Daniel Kroening, and Natasha Sharygina. Verification of Boolean programs
with unbounded thread creation. Theoretical Computer Science (TCS), 2007.
14. Thomas Ball, Byron Cook, Satyaki Das, and Sriram K. Rajamani. Refining approximations
in software predicate abstraction. In TACAS, 2004.
15. Tim Peierls, Brian Goetz, Joshua Bloch, Joseph Bowbeer, Doug Lea, and David Holmes.
Java Concurrency in Practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2005.

16. John Mellor-Crummey and Michael Scott. Algorithms for scalable synchronization on
shared-memory multiprocessors. Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 1991.
17. Randy Allen and Ken Kennedy. Optimizing Compilers for Modern Architectures. Morgan
Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002.
18. Kenneth McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking: An Approach to the State Explosion Problem.
Kluwer Academic, 1993.
19. Nils Timm and Heike Wehrheim. On symmetries and spotlights - verifying parameterised
systems. In ICFEM, 2010.
20. Thomas Henzinger, Ranjit Jhala, Rupak Majumdar, and Shaz Qadeer. Thread-modular abstraction refinement. In CAV, 2003.
21. Sagar Chaki, Edmund Clarke, Nicholas Kidd, Thomas Reps, and Tayssir Touili. Verifying
concurrent message-passing C programs with recursive calls. In TACAS, 2006.
22. J. Lee and D.A. Padua. Hiding relaxed memory consistency with a compiler. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 50:824–833, 2001.
23. J. Alglave. A Shared Memory Poetics. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7 and INRIA, 2010.

A

Boolean Broadcast Programs

Our approach to symmetry-aware predicate abstraction generates a form of concurrent
Boolean program. Although languages for such programs are well-known [13, 5], the
existing ones are not quite suited to our purpose. As discussed in the paper, in order to
handle mixed predicates correctly, we require the facility for a Boolean program thread
to read and update variables of other threads. As this is fundamental to our approach,
we now present syntax and semantics for this variant of concurrent Boolean programs
which we call Boolean broadcast programs.

prog ::= shared name = lit; . . . ; name = lit;
local name = lit; . . . ; name = lit;
1: stmt; . . . ; k: stmt;

lval

stmt ::= lval, . . . , lval = expr, . . . , expr
| goto pc 1 , . . . , pc d (pc j ∈ {1, . . . , k})
| assume expr

lit

::= v | [v]

expr ::= lval | lit | compound expr
::= 0 | 1 | ⋆

name ::= any legal C variable name

Fig. 1. Syntax for Boolean broadcast programs.

Syntax for Boolean broadcast programs is specified by the grammar of Figure 1,
where standard compound expressions are assumed. The language includes standard
features such as shared and local variables, parallel variable assignments, nondeterministic goto statements and assume statements (which together can be used to model
control flow), and the nondeterministic r-value ⋆.
The novel feature of this language is that it supports assignments of the form [v]
= expr, which we call broadcasts. When such a broadcast is executed by thread i, it
causes local variable v to be updated in each passive thread, i.e. in all threads except i.
In this context, expr ranges over shared variables, local variables of the active thread
(thread i), and local variables of the passive thread. The latter are distinguished by the
syntax [v]. We refer to an expression of the form [v] as a passive expression. We refer
to such an expression as a passive l-value or passive r-value depending on which side
of a broadcast it occurs.
We give semantics for parallel assignments in which all passive l-values appear after
non-passive l-values. For parallel assignments where this is not the case, the semantics
are defined to be the same as for any suitable rearrangement that enforces this condition.
In a parallel assignment of the form:
u1 , . . . , ua , [v1 ], . . . , [vb ] = . . .
we require that the ui are mutually distinct, the vi are mutually distinct, and each
vi ∈ VL . We do allow the ui and vj to overlap. We also require that passive r-values
only appear on the right-hand-side of broadcasts (i.e. they cannot be used in standard
assignments).
We now formally define semantics for parallel assignments that may contain broadcasts. Let B be a Boolean broadcast program, and n a positive integer. Let V = VS ∪VL
be the set of shared (VS ) and local (VL ) variable names appearing in B. Define V =

S
VS ∪ 1≤i≤n {li | l ∈ VL }. This is the full set of variables in Bn , an n-thread instantiation of B. A store for Bn is a mapping σ : V → {0, 1}, assigning a Boolean value to
each variable.
For an expression φ, thread indices i and j (1 ≤ i, j ≤ n) and store σ, we write
eval (φ, i, j, σ) ⊆ {0, 1} for the set of possible results which can be obtained by evaluating φ with respect to active thread i and passive thread j in the context of σ. Formally,
for l ∈ VL , s ∈ VS and z ∈ {0, 1}, eval (φ, i, j, σ) is defined for simple expressions as
follows:
eval (z, i, j, σ) = {z}
eval (⋆, i, j, σ) = {0, 1}
eval (l, i, j, σ) = {σ(li )} eval ([l], i, j, σ) = {σ(lj )} eval (s, i, j, σ) = {σ(s)}
and extended to compound expressions in the obvious way.
If φ has no passive subexpressions then it is clear that, for any threads j1 and j2 ,
eval (φ, i, j1 , σ) = eval (φ, i, j2 , σ); the passive thread is irrelevant. In this case we
simply write eval (φ, i, σ).
For a parallel assignment statement assign, store σ and thread id i (1 ≤ i ≤ n),
we write exec(assign, i, σ) for the set of stores that can result from active thread i
executing statement assign in the context of store σ.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that assign has the following form:
s1 , . . . , sa , l1 , . . . , lb , [m1 ], . . . , [mc ] = φ1 , . . . , φa , ψ1 , . . . , ψb , χ1 , . . . , χc ,
where a, b, c ≥ 0, s1 , . . . , sa ∈ VS are mutually distinct shared variables, l1 , . . . , lb ∈
VL are mutually distinct local variables, and m1 , . . . , mc ∈ VL are also mutually distinct local variables (the lj and mj may overlap), φ1 , . . . , φa and ψ1 , . . . , ψb are expressions that do not contain passive subexpressions, and χ1 , . . . , χc are expressions that
may contain passive subexpressions.
With this notation, we define: exec(assign , i, σ) =


σ[ s1 7→ x1 , . . . , sa 7→ xa ,




xf ∈ eval (φf , i, σ),




l1i 7→ y1 , . . . , lbi 7→ yb ,




yg ∈ eval (ψg , i, σ),


1
1
m1 7→ z1,1 , . . . , mc 7→ z1,c , . . .
j
z
∈
eval
(χ
,
i,
j,
σ),
i−1
h
h
m1 7→ zi−1,1 , . . . , mi−1
7→ zi−1,c ,


c


1 ≤ f ≤ a, 1 ≤ g ≤ b,


i+1
i+1


m1 7→ zi+1,1 , . . . , mc 7→ zi+1,c , . . .






1
≤
h
≤
c,
1
≤
j
≤
n,
i
=
6
j
n
n
m1 7→ zn,1 , . . . , mc 7→ zn,c ]
Thus each store in exec(assign, i, σ) is derived from σ by setting each variable sf
and lgi to a value of eval (φf , i, σ) and eval (ψg , i, σ) respectively (1 ≤ f ≤ a, 1 ≤
g ≤ b), and, for each thread j distinct from i, setting variable mjh to a value of
eval (χh , i, j, σ) (1 ≤ h ≤ c).
This definition makes precise the meaning of the [.] notation used in the paper. The
definitions of exec and eval can be used to define the transition system associated with
a Boolean broadcast program in the standard way.

B Proving P′′ Correct Requires Mixed Predicates
Recall program P′′ from Section 1, which, as we show, we cannot prove correct if
executed by 1 thread.
0: shared int r = 0;

P′′ :

shared int s = 0;
local int l = 0;
1: ++r;
2: if (r == 1) then
3:
f ();

f ():

4: ++s, ++l;
5: assert s == l;
6: goto 4;

Let E = E r,s ∪E l for disjoint sets E r,s and E l of predicates over {r, s} and l, resp.;
in particular, no predicate refers to both s and l. Suppose I is an invariant of P′′ expressible over predicates in E such that I ⇒ (s==l) is valid. Since every state satisfying
r==1, s==l is reachable in P′′ , (r==1) ∧ (s==l) ⇒ I is valid. Therefore, for infinitely
many c ∈ N, the assignment r=1, s=l=c satisfies I, written (r, s, l)=(1, c, c) |= I.
Let now {I1 , . . . , Iw } be the cubes in the DNF representation of I. Since this
set is finite, there exist two distinct values a, b and some i ∈ {1, . . . , w} such that
both (r, s, l)=(1, a, a) |= Ii and (r, s, l)=(1, b, b) |= Ii . We split cube Ii into the
sub-cubes Iir,s and Iil that contain the predicates over {r, s} and those over l, resp.:
Ii = Iir,s ∧ Iil . From (r, s, l)=(1, a, a) |= Ii we conclude (r, s)=(1, a) |= Iir,s (l does
not occur in Iir,s ). Similarly, from (r, s, l)=(1, b, b) |= Ii we conclude l=b |= Iil . Hence,
(r, s, l)=(1, a, b) |= Ii , hence (r, s, l)=(1, a, b) |= I, which contradicts the validity of
I ⇒ (s==l) since a 6= b.
2

