Many program verification tools can be customized via run-time configuration options that trade off performance, precision, and soundness. However, in practice, users often run tools under their default configurations, because understanding these tradeoffs requires significant expertise. In this paper, we ask how well a single, default configuration can work in general, and we propose SATune, a novel tool for automatically configuring program verification tools for given target programs. To answer our question, we gathered a dataset that runs four well-known program verification tools against a range of C and Java benchmarks, with results labeled as correct, incorrect, or inconclusive (e.g., timeout). Examining the dataset, we find there is generally no one-size-fits-all best configuration. Moreover, a statistical analysis shows that many individual configuration options do not have simple tradeoffs: they can be better or worse depending on the program.

Motivated by these results, we developed SATune, which constructs configurations using a meta-heuristic search. The search is guided by a surrogate fitness function trained on our dataset. We compare the performance of SATune to three baselines: a single configuration with the most correct results in our dataset; the most precise configuration followed by the most correct configuration (if needed); and the most precise configuration followed by random search (also if needed). We find that SATune outperforms these approaches by completing more correct tasks with high precision. In summary, our work shows that good configurations for verification tools are not simple to find, and SATune takes an important first step towards automating the process of finding them.