BMC vs Unbounded Proof Strategies: Reports and Metrics

Reports and metrics

Reports and Metrics for BMC vs Unbounded Proof Strategies is anchored on Bound depth achieved, k-induction success rate, and ratio of bug-find to full-proof properties.. Convert outcomes into assumption-aware, evidence-backed actions.

A useful report explains why closure quality moved, not only that status changed.

Evidence matrix

EVIDENCE MATRIX - BMC vs Unbounded Proof Strategies

+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Evidence                    | Tells you                      | Does not prove                 | Next action               |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
| property status by class    | closure shape by requirement   | model realism                  | pair with cover reachability |
| vacuity and trigger checks  | assertion meaningfulness       | full legal-path exploration    | inspect assumptions       |
| counterexample traces       | concrete divergence path       | complete bug-space closure     | classify and replay       |
| assumption audit trail      | model boundary confidence      | implementation correctness     | review spec traceability  |
| before/after trend packet   | mitigation movement quality    | long-window stability          | run broader matrix        |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+

• Track Bound depth achieved, k-induction success rate, and ratio of bug-find to full-proof properties. by requirement class and risk tier.

• Include assumption and tool metadata in every report header.

• Correlate status with vacuity and cover reachability movement.

• Call out contradictory evidence explicitly.

Formal deep dive

Convergence requires engine strategy, invariant quality, and model realism to move together with measurable progress.

Concept diagram

CONVERGENCE DECISION FLOW

property bucket -> engine strategy -> helper invariants -> convergence audit -> closure

Metric graph

CONVERGENCE BURNDOWN

open hard properties    ███████
inconclusive aging      █████
closed with audit       ████████

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• engine effectiveness by property class

• induction and helper-lemma success ratio

• stalled-property aging dashboard

• runtime vs closure-quality movement

Mini case study

A stalled set closed only after case-splitting by mode and auditing fairness assumptions for realism.

Debug branches

• Bucket properties by structure and intent before tuning.

• Inspect proof core stability, not runtime alone.

• Reject speed gains that reduce legal reachability.

Senior review question

Ask: which requirement intent is proven, under which assumptions, and what residual risk remains?

Key takeaways

• Tie each proof claim to assumption boundaries and reachability evidence.

• Prefer minimal reversible fixes and preserve legal behavior visibility.

Common pitfalls

• Treating runtime reduction as proof-quality improvement without audits.

• Declaring closure while critical covers remain unreachable.

• Using broad waivers instead of first-divergence root-cause ownership.

Report interpretation

Report status with vacuity, cover reachability, and assumption influence side by side.

Promote only when trend data supports reproducible closure behavior.