Symbolic Methods to Enhance the Precision of
Numerical Abstract Domains⋆

arXiv:cs/0703076v2 [cs.PL] 16 Mar 2007

Antoine Miné
École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France,
mine@di.ens.fr,
http://www.di.ens.fr/∼mine

Abstract. We present lightweight and generic symbolic methods to improve the precision of numerical static analyses based on Abstract Interpretation. The main idea is to simplify numerical expressions before
they are fed to abstract transfer functions. An important novelty is that
these simplifications are performed on-the-fly, using information gathered
dynamically by the analyzer.
A first method, called “linearization,” allows abstracting arbitrary expressions into affine forms with interval coefficients while simplifying them.
A second method, called “symbolic constant propagation,” enhances the
simplification feature of the linearization by propagating assigned expressions in a symbolic way. Combined together, these methods increase the
relationality level of numerical abstract domains and make them more
robust against program transformations. We show how they can be integrated within the classical interval, octagon and polyhedron domains.
These methods have been incorporated within the Astrée static analyzer that checks for the absence of run-time errors in embedded critical
avionics software. We present an experimental proof of their usefulness.

1

Introduction

Ensuring the correctness of software is a difficult but important task, especially
in embedded critical applications such as planes or rockets. There is currently
a great need for static analyzers able to provide invariants automatically and
directly on the source code. As the strongest invariants are not computable in
general, such tools need to perform sound approximations at the expense of
completeness. In this article, we will only consider the properties of numerical
variables and work in the Abstract Interpretation framework. A static analyzer
is thus parameterized by a numerical abstract domain, that is, a set of computerrepresentable numerical properties together with algorithms to compute the semantics of program instructions.
There already exist quit a few numerical abstract domains. Well-known examples include the interval domain [5] that discovers variable bounds, and the
polyhedron domain [8] for affine inequalities. Each domain achieves some cost
⋆

This work was partially supported by the Astrée RNTL project and the APRON
project from the ACI “Sécurité & Informatique.”

X ← [−10, 20];
Y ← X;
if (Y ≤ 0) { Y ← −X; }
// here, Y ∈ [0, 20]
Fig. 1. Absolute value computation example.
X ← [0, 1];
Y ← [0, 0.1];
Z ← [0, 0.2];
T ← (X × Y ) − (X × Z) + Z;
// here, T ∈ [0, 0.2]
Fig. 2. Linear interpolation computation example.

versus precision balance. In particular, non-relational domains—e.g., the interval
domain—are much faster but also much less precise than relational domains—
able to discover variable relationships. Although the interval information seem
sufficient—it allows expressing most correctness requirements, such as the absence of arithmetic overflows or out-of-bound array accesses—relational invariants are often necessary during the course of the analysis to find tight bounds.
Consider, for instance, the program of Fig. 1 that computes the absolute value of
X. We expect the analyzer to infer that, at the end of the program, Y ∈ [0, 20].
The interval domain will find the coarser result Y ∈ [−20, 20] because it cannot
exploit the information Y = X during the test Y ≤ 0. The polyhedron domain
is precise enough to infer the tightest bounds, but results in a loss of efficiency.
In our second example, Fig. 2, T is linearly interpolated between Y and Z, thus,
we have T ∈ [0, 0.2]. Using plain interval arithmetics, one finds the coarser result
T ∈ [−0.2, 0.3]. As the assignment in T is not affine, the polyhedron domain
cannot perform any better.
In this paper, we present symbolic enhancement techniques that can be applied to abstract domains to solve these problems and increase their robustness
against program transformations. In Fig. 1, our symbolic constant propagation is
able to propagate the information Y = X and discover tight bounds using only
the interval domain. In Fig. 2, our linearization technique allows us to prove
that T ∈ [0, 0.3] using the interval domain (this result is not optimal, but still
much better than T ∈ [−0.2, 0.3]). The techniques are generic and can be applied
to other domains, such as the polyhedron domain. However, the improvement
varies greatly from one example to another and enhanced domains do not enjoy
best abstraction functions. Thus, our techniques depend upon strategies, some
of which are proposed in the article.
Related Work. Our linearization can be related to affine arithmetics, a technique
introduced by Vinı́cius et al. in [16] to refine interval arithmetics by taking into
account existing correlations between computed quantities. Both use a symbolic
form with linear properties to allow basic algebraic simplifications. The main
difference is that we relate directly program variables while affine arithmetics

expr ::= X
| [a, b]
| expr ⋄ expr

X ∈V
a ∈ I ∪ {−∞}, b ∈ I ∪ {+∞}, a ≤ b
⋄ ∈ { +, −, ×, / }

inst ::= X ← expr
| expr ⊲⊳ 0 ?

X ∈V
⊲⊳ ∈ { =, 6=, <, ≤, ≥, > }

Fig. 3. Syntax of our simple language.

introduces synthetic variables. This allows us to treat control flow joins and
loops, and to interact with relational domains, which is not possible with affine
arithmetics. Our linearization was first introduced in [13] to abstract floatingpoint arithmetics. It is presented here with some improvements—including the
introduction of several strategies.
Our symbolic constant propagation technique is similar to the classical constraint propagation proposed by Kildall in [11] to perform optimization. However,
scalar constants are replaced with expression trees, and our goal is not to improve the efficiency but the precision of the abstract execution. It is also related
to the work of Colby: he introduces, in [4], a language of transfer relations to
propagate, combine and simplify, in a fully symbolic way, sequences of transfer
functions. We are more modest as we do not handle disjunctions symbolically
and do not try to infer symbolic loop invariants. Instead, we rely on the underlying numerical abstract domain to perform most of the semantical job. A
major difference is that, while Colby’s framework statically transforms the abstract equation system to be solved by the analyzer, our framework performs
this transformation on-the-fly and benefits from the information dynamically
inferred by the analyzer.
Overview of the Paper. The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce
a language—much simplified for the sake of illustration—and recall how to perform a numerical static analysis parameterized by an abstract domain. Sect. 3
then explains how symbolic expression manipulations can be soundly incorporated within the analysis. Two symbolic methods are then introduced: expression
linearization, in Sect. 4, and symbolic constant propagation, in Sect. 5. Sect. 6
discusses our practical implementation within the Astrée static analyzer and
presents some experimental results. We conclude in Sect. 7.

2

Framework

In this section, we briefly recall the classical design of a static analyzer using
the Abstract Interpretation framework by Cousot and Cousot [6, 7]. This design
is specialised towards the automatic computation of numerical invariants, and
thus, is parameterized by a numerical abstract domain.
2.1

Syntax of the Language

For the sake of presentation, we will only consider in this article a very simplified programming language focusing on manipulating numerical variables.

J X K(ρ)
J [a, b] K(ρ)
J e1 ⋄ e2 K(ρ)
J e1 /e2 K(ρ)
J e1 /e2 K(ρ)

def

=
=
def
=
def
=
def
=

def

{ ρ(X) }
{x∈I|a≤x≤b}
{ x ⋄ y | x ∈ J e1 K(ρ), y ∈ J e2 K(ρ) }
⋄ ∈ {+, −, ×}
{ truncate (x/y) | x ∈ J e1 K(ρ), y ∈ J e2 K(ρ), y 6= 0 } if I = Z
{ x/y | x ∈ J e1 K(ρ), y ∈ J e2 K(ρ), y 6= 0 }
if I 6= Z

def

{| X ← e |}(R) = { ρ[X 7→ v] | ρ ∈ R, v ∈ J e K(ρ) }
def
{| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |}(R) = { ρ | ρ ∈ R and ∃ v ∈ J e K(ρ), v ⊲⊳ 0 holds }
Fig. 4. Concrete semantics.

We suppose that a program manipulates only a fixed, finite set of n variables,
def
V = {V1 , . . . , Vn }, with values within a perfect mathematical set, I ∈ {Z, Q, R}.
A program P ∈ P(L × inst × L) is a single control-flow graph where nodes are
program points, in L, and arcs are labelled by instructions in inst. We denote
by e the entry program point. As described in Fig. 3, only two types of instructions are allowed: assignments (X ← expr) and tests (expr ⊲⊳ 0 ?), where expr
are numerical expressions and ⊲⊳ is a comparison operator. In the syntax of expressions, classical numerical constants have been replaced with intervals [a, b]
with constant bounds—possibly +∞ or −∞. Such intervals correspond to a nondeterministic choice of a new value within the bounds each time the expression
is evaluated. This will be key in defining the concept of expression abstraction in
Sects. 3–5. Moreover, interval constants appear naturally in programs that fetch
input values from an external environment, or when modeling rounding errors
in floating-point computations.
Affine forms play an important role in program analysis as they are easy
to manipulate and appear frequently as program invariants. We enhance affine
forms with the non-determinism of intervals
by defining interval affine forms as
P
the expressions of the form: [a0 , b0 ] + k ([ak , bk ] × Vk ).
2.2

Concrete Semantics of the Language

The concrete semantics of a program is the most precise mathematical expression
of its behavior. Let us first define an environment as a function, in V → I,
associating a value to each variable. We choose a simple invariant semantics
that associates to each program point l ∈ L the set of all environments Xl ∈
P(V → I) that can hold when l is reached. Given an environment ρ ∈ (V → I),
the semantics J expr K(ρ) of an expression expr , shown in Fig. 4, is the set of values
the expression can evaluate to. It outputs a set to account for non-determinism.
When I = Z, the truncate function rounds the possibly non-integer result of the
division towards an integer by truncation, as it is common in most computer
languages. Divisions by zero are undefined, that is, return no result; for the
sake of simplicity, we have not introduced any error state. The semantics of
assignments and tests is defined by transfer functions {| inst |} : P(V → I) →
P(V → I) in Fig. 4. The assignment transfer function returns environments where

one variable has changed its value (ρ[V 7→ x] denotes the function equal to ρ on
V \ {V } and that maps V to x). The test transfer function filters environments
to keep only those that may satisfy the test. We can now define the semantics
(Xl )l∈L of a program
 P as the smallest solution of the following equation system:
 Xe = V[→ I
(1)
{| i |}(Xl′ ) when l 6= e
X =
 l
(l′ ,i,l)∈P

It describes the strongest invariant at each program point.
2.3

Abstract Interpretation and Numerical Abstract Domains

The concrete semantics is very precise but cannot be computed fully automatically by a computer. We will only try to compute a sound overapproximation,
that is, a superset of the environments reached by the program. We use Abstract
Interpretation [6, 7] to design such an approximation.
Numerical Abstract Domains. An analysis is parameterized by a numerical abstract domain that allows representing and manipulating selected subsets of environments. Formally it is defined as:
– a set of computer-representable abstract elements D♯ ,
– a partial order ⊑♯ on D♯ to model the relative precision of abstract elements,
– a monotonic concretization γ : D♯ → P(V → I), that assigns a concrete
property to each abstract element,
– a greatest element ⊤♯ for ⊑♯ such that γ(⊤♯ ) = (V → I),
♯
– sound and computable abstract versions {| inst |} of all transfer functions,
♯
♯
– sound and computable abstractions ∪ and ∩ of ∪ and ∩,
– a widening operator ▽♯ if D♯ has infinite increasing chains.
The soundness condition for the abstraction F ♯ : (D♯ )n → D♯ of a n−ary operator F is: F (γ(X1♯ ), . . . , γ(Xn♯ )) ⊆ γ(F ♯ (X1♯ , . . . , Xn♯ )). It ensures that F ♯ does
not forget any of F ’s behaviors. It can, however, introduce spurious ones.
Abstract Analysis. Given an abstract domain, an abstract version (1♯ ) of the
equation system 
(1) can be derived as:
♯

⊤♯
 Xe =
[
♯
♯
(1♯ )
{| i |} (Xl♯′ ) when l 6= e
Xl♯ ⊑♯


(l′ ,i,l)∈P

The soundness condition ensures that any solution of (1♯ ) satisfies ∀ l ∈
L, γ(Xl♯ ) ⊇ Xl . The system can be solved by iterations, using a widening operator ▽♯ to ensure termination. We refer the reader to Bourdoncle [2] for an
in-depth description of possible iteration strategies. The computed Xl♯ is almost
never the best abstraction—if it exists—of the concrete solution Xl . Unavoidable losses of precision come from the use of convergence acceleration ▽♯ , nonnecessarily best abstract transfer functions, and the fact that the composition of
best abstractions is generally not a best abstraction. This last issue explains why
even the simplest semantics-preserving program transformations can drastically

affect the quality of a static analysis.
Existing Numerical Domains. There exists many numerical abstract domains. We
will be mostly interested in those able to express variable bounds. Such abstract
domains include
the well-known interval domain [5] (able to express invariants of
V
the form i VVi ∈
P[ai , bi ]), and the polyhedron domain [8] (able to express affine
these two in
inequalities i
j αij Vi ≥ βj ). More recent domains, in-between
V
terms of cost and precision, include
the
octagon
domain
[12]
(
±V
i ±Vj ≤ cij ),
ij
V P
β
where
α
∈
{−1,
0,
1}),
and the
the octahedron domain [3] ( j
j
ij
i αij Vi ≥
V
Two Variable Per Inequality domain [15] ( i αi Vki + βi Vli ≤ ci ).

3

Incorporating Symbolic Methods

We suppose that we are given a numerical abstract domain D♯ . The gist of
♯
our method is to replace, in the abstract transfer functions {| X ← e |} and
♯
′
{| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} , each expression e with another one e , in a sound way.
Partial Order on Expressions. To define formally the notion of sound expression
abstraction, we first introduce an approximation order  on expressions. A natural choice is to consider the point-wise ordering of the concrete semantics J · K
def
defined in Fig. 4, that is: e1  e2 ⇐⇒ ∀ ρ ∈ (V → I), J e1 K(ρ) ⊆ J e2 K(ρ).
However, requiring the inclusion to hold for all environments is quite restrictive.
More aggressive expression transformations can be enabled by only requiring
soundness with respect to selected sets of environments. Our partial order  is
now defined “up to” a set of environments R ∈ P(V → I):
def

Definition 1 R |= e1  e2 ⇐⇒ ∀ ρ ∈ R, J e1 K(ρ) ⊆ J e2 K(ρ).
We denote by R |= e1 = e2 the associated equality relation.
Sound Symbolic Transformations. We wish now to abstract some transfer function, e.g., {| V ← e |}, on an abstract environment R♯ ∈ D♯ . The following theorem
states that, if e′ overapproximates e on γ(R♯ ), it is sound to replace e with e′ in
the abstract transfer functions:
Theorem 1 If γ(R♯ ) |= e  e′ , then:
♯
• ({| V ← e |} ◦ γ)(R♯ ) ⊆ (γ ◦ {| V ← e′ |} )(R♯ ),
♯
• ({| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} ◦ γ)(R♯ ) ⊆ (γ ◦ {| e′ ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} )(R♯ ).

4

Expression Linearization

Our first symbolic transformation
is an abstraction of arbitrary expressions into
P
interval affine forms i0 + k (ik × Vk ), where the i’s stand for intervals.
4.1

Definitions

Interval Affine Form Operators. We first introduce a few operators to manipulate
interval affine forms in a symbolic way. Using the classical interval arithmetic

operators—denoted with a I superscript—we can define point-wisely the addition ⊞ and subtraction ⊟ of affine forms, as well as the multiplication ⊠ and
division  of an affine form by a constant interval:
Definition 2
P
P
P
def
• (i0 + k ik × Vk ) ⊞ (i′0 + k i′k × Vk ) = (i0 +I i′0 ) + k (ik +I i′k ) × Vk ,
P
P
P
def
• (i0 + k ik × Vk ) ⊟ (i′0 + k i′k × Vk ) = (i0 −I i′0 ) + k (ik −I i′k ) × Vk ,
P
P
def
• i ⊠ (i0 + k ik × Vk ) = (i ×I i0 ) + k (i ×I ik ) × Vk ,
P
P
def
• (i0 + k ik × Vk )  i = (i0 /I i) + k (ik /I i) × Vk .

where the interval arithmetic operators are defined classically as:
def
def
• [a, b] +I [a′ , b′ ] = [a + a′ , b + b′ ],
• [a, b] −I [a′ , b′ ] = [a − b′ , b − a′ ],
def
• [a, b] ×I [a′ , b′ ] = [min(aa′ , ab′ , ba′ , bb′ ), max(aa′ , ab′ , ba′ , bb′ )],
def
• 
[a, b]/I [a′ , b′ ] =
if 0 ∈ [a′ , b′ ]
 [−∞, +∞]
′
′
′
′
′
′
′
′
[min(a/a , a/b , b/a , b/b ), max(a/a , a/b , b/a , b/b )]
when I 6= Z

[⌊min(a/a′ , a/b′ , b/a′ , b/b′ )⌋, ⌈max(a/a′ , a/b′ , b/a′ , b/b′ )⌉] when I = Z

The following theorem states that these operators are always sound and, in some
cases, complete—i.e.,  can be replaced by =:

Theorem 2 For all interval affine forms l1 ,
• IV |= l1 + l2 = l1 ⊞ l2 ,
• IV |= i × l1 = i ⊠ l1 , if I 6= Z,
• IV |= l1 /i = l1  i, if I 6= Z and 0 ∈
/ i,

l2
•
•
•

and interval i, we have:
IV |= l1 − l2 = l1 ⊟ l2 ,
IV |= i × l1  i ⊠ l1 , otherwise,
IV |= l1 /i  l1  i, otherwise.

When I = Z, we must conservatively round upper and lower bounds respectively
towards +∞ and −∞ to ensure that Thm. 2 holds. The non-exactness of the
multiplication and division can then lead to some precision degradation. For
instance, (X  2) ⊠ 2 evaluates to [0, 2] × X as, when computing X  2, the nonintegral value 1/2 must be abstracted into the integral interval [0, 1]. One solution
is to perform all computations in R, keeping in mind that, due to truncation,
l/[a, b] should be interpreted when 0 ∈
/ [a, b] as (l  [a, b]) ⊞ [−1 + x, 1 − x],
where x = 1/ min(|a|, |b|). We then obtain the more precise result X + [−1, 1].
We now introduce a so-called “intervalization” operator, ι, to abstracts interval affine forms into intervals. Given an abstract environment, it evaluates the
affine form using interval arithmetics. Suppose that D♯ provides us with projection operators πk : D♯ → P(I) able to return an interval overapproximation for
each variable Vk . We define ι as:
PI
P
def
I
♯
Definition 3 ι(i0 + k (ik × Vk ))(R♯ ) = i0 +I
k (ik × πk (R )),
♯
♯
where each πk (R ) is an interval containing { ρ(Vk ) | ρ ∈ γ(R ) }.
The following theorem states that ι is a sound operator with respect to R♯ :
Theorem 3 γ(R♯ ) |= l  ι(l)(R♯ ).

As πk performs a non-relational abstraction, ι incurs a loss of precision whenever
D♯ is a relational domain. Consider, for instance R♯ such that γ(R♯ ) = { ρ ∈
({V1 , V2 } → [0, 1]) | ρ(V1 ) = ρ(V2 ) }. Then, J ι(V1 − V2 )(R♯ ) K is the constant
function [−1, 1] while J V1 − V2 K is 0.
Linearization. The linearization L e M(R♯ ) of an arbitrary expression e in an abstract environment R♯ can now be defined by structural induction as follows:
Definition 4
def
def
• L V M(R♯ ) = [1, 1] × V ,
• L [a, b] M(R♯ ) = [a, b],
def
• L e1 + e2 M(R♯ ) = L e1 M(R♯ ) ⊞ L e2 M(R♯ ),
def
• L e1 − e2 M(R♯ ) = L e1 M(R♯ ) ⊟ L e2 M(R♯ ),
def
• L e1 /e2 M(R♯ ) = L e1 M(R♯ )  ι(L e2 M(R♯ ))(R♯ ),
either ι(L e1 M(R♯ ))(R♯ ) ⊠ L e2 M(R♯ )
def
• L e1 × e2 M(R♯ ) =
(see Sect. 4.3)
or
ι(L e2 M(R♯ ))(R♯ ) ⊠ L e1 M(R♯ )
The ι operator is used to deal with non-linear constructions: the right argument of a division and either argument of a multiplication are intervalized. As a
consequence of Thms. 2 and 3, our linearization is sound:
Theorem 4 γ(R♯ ) |= e  L e M(R♯ ).
Obviously, L · M generally incurs a loss of precision with respect to . Also, L e M is
not monotonic in its e argument. Consider for instance X/X in the environment
R♯ such that πX (R♯ ) = [1, +∞]. Although γ(R♯ ) |= X/X  [1, 1], we do not have
γ(R♯ ) |= L X/X M(R♯ )  L [1, 1] M(R♯ ) as L X/X M(R♯ ) = [0, 1] × X. It is important
to note that there is no useful notion of best abstraction of expressions for .
4.2

Integration With a Numerical Abstract Domain

Given an abstract domain, D♯ , we can now derive a new abstract domain with
♯
, identical to D♯ except for the following transfer functions:
linearization, DL
def
♯
♯
{| V ← e |}L (R♯ ) = {| V ← L e M(R♯ ) |} (R♯ )
def
♯
♯
{| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |}L (R♯ ) = {| L e M(R♯ ) ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} (R♯ )
The soundness of these transfer functions is guaranteed by Thms. 1 and 4.
Application to the Interval Domain. As all non-relational domains, the interval
domain [5], is not able to exploit the fact that the same variable occurs several
times in an expression. Our linearization performs some symbolic simplification,
and so, is able to partly correct this problem. Consider, for instance, the assignment {| Y ← 3 × X − X |} in an abstract environment such that X ∈ [a, b]. The
I
regular interval domain DI will assign [3a − b, 3b − a] to Y , while DL
will assign
♯
[2a, 2b] as L 3 × X − X M(R ) = 2 × X. This last answer is strictly more precise
whenever a 6= b. Using the exactness of Thm. 2, one can prove that, when I 6= Z,
I
the assignment in DL
is always more precise than in DI . This may not be the
case for a test, or when I = Z.
Application to the Octagon Domain. The octagon domain [12] is more precise
than the interval one, but it is more complex. As a consequence, it is quite difficult

to design abstract transfer functions for non-linear expressions. This problem can
be solved by using our linearization in combination with the efficient and rather
precise interval affine form abstract transfer functions proposed in our previous
work [14]. The octagon domain with linearization is able to prove, for instance,
that, after the assignment X ← T × Y in an environment such that T ∈ [−1, 1],
we have −Y ≤ X ≤ Y .
Application to the Polyhedron Domain. The polyhedron domain [8] is more precise than the octagon domain but cannot deal with full interval affine forms—
only the constant coefficient may safely be an interval. To solve this problem,
we introduce a function µ to abstract interval affine forms further by making
all variable coefficients singletons. For the sake of conciseness, we give a formula
valid only for I 6= Z and finite interval bounds:
Definition 5
P
♯ def
µ
 ([a0 , b0 ] + Pk [ak , bk ] × Vk ) (R ) =

P
[a0 , b0 ] +I Ik [(ak − bk )/2, (bk − ak )/2] ×I πk (R♯ ) +
k ((ak + bk )/2) × Vk

µ works by “distributing” the weight bk − ak of each variable coefficient into the
constant component, using variable bounds information from R♯ . One can prove
that µ is sound, that is, γ(R♯ ) |= l  µ(l)R♯ .
Application to Floating-Point Arithmetics. Real-life programming languages do
not manipulate rationals or reals, but floating-point numbers, which are much
more difficult to abstract. Pervasive rounding must be taken into account. As
most classical properties of arithmetic operators are no longer true, it is generally
not safe to feed floating-point expressions to relational domains. One solution
is to convert such expressions into real-valued expressions by making rounding
explicit. Rounding is highly non-linear but can be abstracted using intervals. For
instance, X + Y in the floating-point world can be abstracted into [1 − ǫ1 , 1 +
ǫ1 ] × X + [1 − ǫ1, 1 + ǫ1 ] × Y + [−ǫ2 , ǫ2 ] using small constants ǫ1 and ǫ2 modeling,
respectively, relative and absolute errors. This fits in our linearization framework
which can be extended to treat soundly floating-point arithmetics. We refer the
reader to related work [13] for more information.
4.3

Multiplication Strategies

When encountering a multiplication e1 × e2 and neither L e1 M(R♯ ) nor L e2 M(R♯ )
evaluates to an interval, we must intervalize either argument. Both choices are
valid, but influence greatly the precision of the result.
All-Cases Strategy. A first idea is to try both choices for each multiplication; we
get a set of linearized expressions. We have no notion of greatest lower bound
on expressions, so, we must evaluate a transfer function for all expressions in
parallel, and take the intersection ∩♯ of the resulting abstract elements in D♯ .
Unfortunately, the cost is exponential in the number of multiplications in the
original expression, hence the need for deterministic strategies that always select
one interval affine form.
Interval-Size Strategy. A simple strategy is to intervalize the affine form that will

yield the narrower interval. This greedy approach tries to limit the amplitude
of the non-determinism introduced by multiplications. The extreme case holds
when the amplitude of one interval is zero, meaning that the sub-expression
is semantically a constant; intervalizing it will not result in any precision loss.
Finally, note that the relative amplitude (b − a)/|a + b| may be more significant
than the absolute amplitude b − a if we want to intervalize preferably expressions
that are constant up to some small relative rounding error.
Simplification-Driven Strategy. Another idea is to maximize the amount of simplification by not intervalizing, when possible, sub-expressions containing variables appearing in other sub-expressions. For instance, in X − (Y × X), Y will
be intervalized to yield [1 − max Y, 1 − min Y ] × X. Unlike the preceding greedy
approach, this strategy is global and treats the expression as a whole.
Homogeneity Strategy. We now consider the linear interpolation of Fig. 2. In
order to achieve the best precision, it is important to intervalize X in both multiplications. This yields T ← [0, 1] × Y + [0, 1] × Z and we are able to prove that
T ≥ 0—however, we find that T ≤ 0.3 while in fact T ≤ 0.2. The interval-size
strategy would choose to intervalize Y and Z that have smaller range than X,
which yields the imprecise assignment T ← [−0.2, 0.1] × X + [0, 0.2]. Likewise,
the simplification-driven strategy may choose to keep X that appears in two
sub-expressions and also intervalize both Y and Z. To solve this problem, we
propose to intervalize the smallest set of variables that makes the expression
homogeneous, that is, arguments of + and − operators should have the same
degree. In order to make the (1 − X) sub-expression homogeneous, X is intervalized. This last strategy is quite robust: it keeps working if we change the
assignment into the equivalent T ← X × Y − X × Z + Z, or if we consider
bi-linear interpolations or interpolations with normalization coefficients.
4.4

Concluding Remark

Our linearization is not equivalent to a static program transformation. To cope
with non-linearity as best as we can, we exploit the information dynamically
inferred by the analysis: first, in the intervalization ι, then, in the multiplication strategy. Both algorithms take as argument the current numerical abstract
environment R♯ . As, dually, the linearization improves the precision of the next
computed abstract element, the dynamic nature of our approach ensures a positive feed-back.

5

Symbolic Constant Propagation

The automatic symbolic simplification implied by our linearization allows us to
gain much precision when dealing with complex expressions, without the burden
of designing new abstract domains tailored for them. However, the analysis is
still sensitive to program transformations that decompose expressions and introduce new temporary variables—such as common sub-expression elimination
or register spilling. In order to be immune to this problem, one must generally

use an expressive, and so, costly, relational domain. We propose an alternate,
lightweight solution based on a kind of constant domain that tracks assignments
dynamically and propagate symbolic expressions within transfer functions.
5.1

The Symbolic Constant Domain

Enriched Expressions. We denote by C the set of all syntactic expressions, enriched with one element ⊤C denoting ‘any value.’ The flat ordering ⊑C is defined
as X ⊑C Y ⇐⇒ Y = ⊤C or X = Y . The concrete semantics J · K of Fig. 4 is extended to C as J ⊤C K(ρ) = I. We also use two functions on expression trees: occ :
C → P(V) that returns the set of variables occurring in an expressing, and subst :
C × V × C → C that substitutes, in its first argument, every occurrence of a given
variable by its last argument. Their definition on non−⊤C elements is quite standef
dard and we do not present it here. They are extended to C as follows: occ(⊤C ) =
C
C
∅, subst(e, V, ⊤ ) equals e when V ∈
/ occ(e) and ⊤ when V ∈ occ(e).
Abstract Symbolic Environments. The symbolic constant domain is the set
def
DC = V → C restricted as follows: there must be no cyclic dependencies
in a map S C ∈ DC , that is, pair-wise distinct variables V1 , . . . , Vn such that
∀i, Vi ∈ occ(S C (Vi+1 )) and Vn ∈ occ(S C (V1 )). The partial order ⊑C on DC is the
point-wise extension of that on C. Each element S C ∈ DC represents the set of
environments compatible with the symbolic information:
def

Definition 6 γ C (S C ) = { ρ ∈ (V → I) | ∀k, ρ(Vk ) ∈ J S C (Vk ) K(ρ) }.
Main Theorem. Our approach relies on the fact that applying a substitution
from S C to any expression is sound with respect to γ C (S C ):
Theorem 5 ∀e, V, S C , γ C (S C ) |= e  subst(e, V, S C (V )).
Abstract Operators. We now define the following operators on DC :
Definition 7
C

def

C

• {| V ← e |} (S )(Vk ) =
C



subst(e, V, S C (V ))
subst(S C (Vk ), V, S C (V ))

if V = Vk
if V =
6 Vk

def

• {| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} (S C ) = S C ,
S C (Vk )
def
• (S C ∪C T C )(Vk ) =
⊤C
C
C def
C
• S ∩T = S

if S C (Vk ) = T C (Vk )
otherwise

Our assignment V ← e first substitutes V with S C (V ) in S C and e before adding
the information that V maps to the substituted e. This is necessary to remove
all prior information on V (no longer valid after the assignment) and prevent
the apparition of dependency cycles. As we are only interested in propagating
assignments, tests are abstracted as the identity, which is sound but coarse. Our
union abstraction only keeps syntactically equal expressions. This corresponds
to the least upper bound with respect to ⊑C . Our intersection keeps only the
information of the left argument. All these operators respect the non-cyclicity

condition. Note that one could be tempted to refine the intersection by mixing
information from the left and right arguments in order to minimize the number
of variables mapping to ⊤C . Unfortunately, careless mixing may break the noncyclicity condition. We settled, as a simpler but safe solution, to keeping the
left argument. Finally, we do not need any widening: at each abstract iteration,
unstable symbolic expressions are directly replaced with ⊤C when applying ∪C ,
and so, become stable.
5.2

Integration With a Numerical Abstract Domain

Given a numerical abstract domain D♯ , the domain D♯×C is obtained by com♯
bining DL
with DC the following way:
Definition 8
def
• D♯×C = D♯ × DC ,
def
• ⊑♯×C , ∪♯×C and ∩♯×C are defined pair-wise, and ▽♯×C = ▽♯ × ∪C ,
def
• γ ♯×C (R♯ , S C ) = γ ♯ (R♯ ) ∩ γ C (S C ),
def
♯×C
♯
C
• {| V ← e |} (R♯ , S C ) = ({| V ← strat (e, S C ) |}L (R♯ ), {| V ← e |} (S C ))
def
♯×C
♯
C
• {| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} (R♯ , S C ) = ({| strat (e, S C ) ⊲⊳ 0 ? |}L (R♯ ), {| e ⊲⊳ 0 ? |} (S C ))
Where strat(e, S C ) is a substitution strategy that may perform sequences of substitutions of the form f 7→ subst(f, V, S C (V )) in e, for any variables V .
All information in DC and D♯ are computed independently, except that the
♯
. The next section
symbolic information is used in the transfer functions for DL
discusses the choice of a strategy strat. Note that, although we chose in this
presentation to abstract the semantics of Fig. 4, our construction can be used on
any class of expressions, including floating-point and non-numerical expressions.
5.3

Substitution Strategies

Any sequence of substitutions extracted from the current symbolic constant information is sound, but some give better results than others. As for the intervalization of Sect. 4.3, we rely on carefully designed strategies.
Full Propagation. Thanks to the non-cyclicity of elements S C ∈ DC , we can
safely perform all substitutions f 7→ subst(f, V, S C (V )) for all V in any order,
and reach a normal form. This gives a first basic substitution strategy. However,
because our goal is to perform linearization-driven simplifications, it is important
to avoid substituting with variable-free expressions or we may lose correlations
between multiple occurrences of variables. For instance, full substitution in the
assignment Z ← X − 0.5 × Y with the environment S C = [X 7→ [0, 1], Y 7→ X]
results in Z ← [0, 1] − 0.5 × [0, 1], and so, Z ∈ [−0.5, 1]. Avoiding variable-free
substitutions, this gives Z ← X − 0.5 × X, and so, Z ∈ [0, 0.5], which is more
precise. This refined strategy also succeeds in proving that Y ∈ [0, 20] in the
example of Fig. 1 by substituting Y with X in the test Y ≤ 0.
Enforcing Determinism and Linearity. Non-determinism in expressions is a major source of precision loss. Thus, a strategy is to avoid substituting V with

S C (V ) whenever #(J S C (V ) K ◦ γ)(X ♯ ) > 1. As this property is not easily computed, we propose the following sufficient syntactic criterion: S C (V ) should not
be ⊤C nor contain a non-singleton interval. This strategy gives the expected
result in the example of Fig. 1. Likewise, one may wish to avoid substituting
with non-linear expressions, as they must be subsequently intervalized, which is
a cause of precision loss. However, disabling too many substitutions may prevent
the linearization step to exploit correlations. Suppose that we break the last assignment of Fig. 2 in three parts: U ← X × Y ; V ← (1 − X) × Z; T ← U − V .
Then, the interval domain with linearization and symbolic constant propagation
will not be able to prove that T ∈ [0, 0.3] unless we allow substituting, in T , U
and V with their non-linear symbolic value.
Gaining More Precision. More precision can be achieved by slightly altering
the definition of D♯×C . A simple but effective idea is to allow several strategies,
compute several transfer functions in D♯ in parallel, and take the abstract intersection ∩♯ of the results. Another idea is to perform reductions from DC to D♯
♯
after each transfer function: X ♯ is replaced with {| Vk − S C (Vk ) = 0 ? |} (X ♯ ) for
some k. Reductions can be iterated to increase the precision, following Granger’s
local iterations scheme [10].

6

Application to the Astrée Analyzer

Astrée is an efficient static analyzer focusing on the detection of run-time errors
for programs written in a subset of the C programming language, excluding recursion, dynamic memory allocation and concurrent executions. It aims towards
a degree of precision sufficient to actually prove the absence of run-time errors.
This is achieved by specializing the analyzer towards specific program families,
introducing various abstract domains, and setting iteration strategy parameters.
Currently, the considered family of programs is that of safety, critical, embedded,
fly-by-wire avionic software, featuring large reactive loops running for billions of
iterations, thousands of global state variables, and pervasive floating-point arithmetics. We refer the reader to [1] for more detailed informations on Astrée.
Integrating the Symbolic Methods. Astrée uses a partially reduced product of
several numerical abstract domains, together with both our two symbolic enhancement methods. Relational domains, such as the octagon [12] or digital
filtering [9] domains, rely on the linearization to abstract complex floating-point
expressions into interval affine forms on reals. The interval domain is refined by
combining three versions of each transfer function. Firstly, using the expression
unchanged. Secondly, using the linearized expression. Thirdly, applying symbolic
constant propagation followed by linearization. We use the simplification-driven
multiplication strategy, as well as the full propagation strategy—not propagating
variable-free expressions.
Experimental Results. We present analysis results on a several programs. All the
analyses have been carried on an 64-bit AMD Opteron 248 (2 GHz) workstation running Linux, using a single processor. The following table compares the
precision and efficiency of Astrée before and after enabling our two symbolic

methods:
without enhancements
code size analysis nb. of
memory alarms
in lines
time
iters.
370
1.8s 17
16 MB 0
9 500
90s 39
80 MB 8
70 000 2h 40mn 141 559 MB 391
226 000 11h 16mn 150 1.3 GB 141
400 000 22h 9mn 172 2.2 GB 282

with enhancements
analysis nb. of
memory alarms
time
iters.
3.1s 17
16 MB 0
160s 39
81 MB 8
1h 16mn 44 582 MB 0
6h 36mn 86
1.3 GB 1
13h 52mn 96
2.2 GB 0

The precision gain is quite impressive as up to hundreds of alarms are removed. In two cases, this increase in precision is sufficient to achieve zero alarm,
which actually proves the absence of run-time errors. Moreover, the increase in
memory consumption is negligible. Finally, in our largest examples, our enhancement methods save analysis time: although each abstract iteration is more costly
(up to 25%) this is compensated by the reduced number of iterations needed to
stabilize our invariants as a smaller state space is explored.
Discussion. It is possible to use the symbolic constant propagation also in relational domains, but this was not needed in our examples to remove alarms. Our
experiments show that, even though the linearization and constant propagation
techniques on intervals are not as robust as fully relational abstract domains,
they are quite versatile thanks to their parametrization in terms of strategies,
and much simpler to implement than even a simple relational abstract domain.
Moreover, our methods exhibit a near-linear time and memory cost, which is
much more efficient than relational domains.

7

Conclusion

We have proposed, in this article, two techniques, called linearization and symbolic constant propagation, that can be combined together to improve the precision of numerical abstract domains. In particular, we are able to compensate for
the lack of non-linear transfer functions in the polyhedron and octagon domains,
and for a weak or inexistent level of relationality in the octagon and interval
domains. Finally, they help making abstract domains robust against program
transformations. Thanks to their parameterization in terms of strategies, they
can be finely tuned to take into account semantics as well as syntactic program
features. They are also very lightweight in terms of both analysis and development costs. We found out that, in many cases, it is easier and faster to design a
couple of linearization and symbolic propagation strategies to solve a local loss of
precision in some program, while keeping the interval abstract domain, than to
develop a specific relational abstract domain able to represent the required local
properties. Strategies also proved reusable on programs belonging to the same
family. Practical results obtained within the Astrée static analyzer show that
our methods both increase the precision and save analysis time. They were key
in proving the absence of run-time errors in real-life critical embedded avionics

software.
Future Work. Because the precision gain strongly depends upon the multiplication strategy used in our linearization and the propagation strategy used in the
symbolic constant domain, a natural extension of our work is to try and design
new such strategies, adapted to different practical cases. A more challenging task
would be to provide theoretical guarantees that some strategies make abstract
domains immune to given classes of program transformations.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank all the former and present members
of the Astrée team: B. Blanchet, P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne,
D. Monniaux and X. Rival. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees
for their useful comments.

References
[1] B. Blanchet, P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, D. Monniaux,
and X. Rival. A static analyzer for large safety-critical software. In ACM PLDI’03,
volume 548030, pages 196–207. ACM Press, 2003.
[2] F. Bourdoncle. Efficient chaotic iteration strategies with widenings. In FMPA’93,
volume 735 of LNCS, pages 128–14. Springer, 1993.
[3] R. Clarisó and J. Cortadella. The octahedron abstract domain. In SAS’04, volume
3148 of LNCS, pages 312–327. Springer, 2004.
[4] C. Colby. Semantics-Based Program Analysis via Symbolic Composition of Transfer Relations. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996.
[5] P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Static determination of dynamic properties of programs.
In ISOP’76, pages 106–130. Dunod, Paris, France, 1976.
[6] P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for
static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In
ACM POPL’77, pages 238–252. ACM Press, 1977.
[7] P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation and application to logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 13(2–3):103–179, 1992.
[8] P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. Automatic discovery of linear restraints among
variables of a program. In ACM POPL’78, pages 84–97. ACM Press, 1978.
[9] J. Feret. Static analysis of digital filters. In ESOP’04, volume 2986 of LNCS.
Springer, 2004.
[10] P. Granger. Improving the results of static analyses programs by local decreasing
iteration. In FSTTCS, volume 652 of LNCS, pages 68–79. Springer, 1992.
[11] G. Kildall. A unified approach to global program optimization. In ACM POPL’73,
pages 194–206. ACM Press, 1973.
[12] A. Miné. The octagon abstract domain. In AST 2001 in WCRE 2001, IEEE,
pages 310–319. IEEE CS Press, 2001.
[13] A. Miné. Relational abstract domains for the detection of floating-point run-time
errors. In ESOP’04, volume 2986 of LNCS, pages 3–17. Springer, 2004.
[14] A. Miné. Weakly Relational Numerical Abstract Domains. PhD thesis, École
Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, dec 2004.
[15] A. Simon, A. King, and J. Howe. Two variables per linear inequality as an abstract
domain. In LOPSTR’02, volume 2664 of LNCS, pages 71–89. Springer, 2002.
[16] M. Vinı́cius, A. Andrade, J. L. D. Comba, and J. Stolfi. Affine arithmetic. In
INTERVAL’94, 1994.

