An automated system repair framework with signal temporal logic

Ergurtuna, Mert; Yalcinkaya, Beyazit; Göl, Ebru Aydın

doi:10.1007/s00236-021-00403-z

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(114 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar in spirit is the approach of [11] which uses OptSAT to learn a formula interactively with a human user. The technique in [12] uses a pre-specified set of parametric formula templates from which to learn a root-cause for a system's failure. Finally, the algorithm in [9] takes a given formula structure and computes the set of parameters that achieve a given false positive and false negative rates, where possible.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiable Inference of Temporal Logic Formulas

Fronda

Abbas

2022

IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate the first Recurrent Neural Network architecture for learning Signal Temporal Logic formulas, and present the first systematic comparison of formula inference methods. Legacy systems embed much expert knowledge which is not explicitly formalized. There is great interest in learning formal specifications that characterize the ideal behavior of such systems -that is, formulas in temporal logic that are satisfied by the system's output signals. Such specifications can be used to better understand the system's behavior and improve design of its next iteration. Previous inference methods either assumed certain formula templates, or did a heuristic enumeration of all possible templates. This work proposes a neural network architecture that infers the formula structure via gradient descent, eliminating the need for imposing any specific templates. It combines learning of formula structure and parameters in one optimization. Through systematic comparison, we demonstrate that this method achieves similar or better mis-classification rates (MCR) than enumerative and lattice methods. We also observe that different formulas can achieve similar MCR, empirically demonstrating the underdeterminism of the problem of temporal logic inference.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiable Inference of Temporal Logic Formulas

Fronda

Abbas

2022

IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As these operations can significantly change the set of traces of the automaton, they check the equivalence of the original and the repaired models after applying the suggested repair. In [EYG21], new clocks and constraints over these new clocks are introduced to restrict the behavior of the automaton to eliminate the violating traces. Neither of these approaches can handle reachability properties.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For safety properties, we consider a timed automaton satisfying the property, identify the constraints of the automaton that are effective in the satisfaction of the property and further analyze these constraints. On the other hand, both [KLW19] and [EYG21] aim at repairing a TA that violates the given property.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timed Automata Robustness Analysis via Model Checking

Bendík¹,

Sencan²,

Göl³

et al. 2022

Logical Methods in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timed automata (TA) have been widely adopted as a suitable formalism to model time-critical systems. Furthermore, contemporary model-checking tools allow the designer to check whether a TA complies with a system specification. However, the exact timing constants are often uncertain during the design phase. Consequently, the designer is often able to build a TA with a correct structure, however, the timing constants need to be tuned to satisfy the specification. Moreover, even if the TA initially satisfies the specification, it can be the case that just a slight perturbation during the implementation causes a violation of the specification. Unfortunately, model-checking tools are usually not able to provide any reasonable guidance on how to fix the model in such situations. In this paper, we propose several concepts and techniques to cope with the above mentioned design phase issues when dealing with reachability and safety specifications.

show abstract

“…We present an approach that uses a counterexample to prevent bad behavior while the technique in [11] computes repairs to ensure missing expected behavior. The algorithm presented in [19] repairs a TA by adding time constraints, whereas the approach in this paper modifies existing time constraints. Our approach also shares some similarities with syntax-guided synthesis [2,41], which has also been deployed in the context of program repair [35].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated repair for timed systems

Kölbl

Leue

Wies

2021

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present algorithms and techniques for the repair of timed system models, given as networks of timed automata (NTA). The repair is based on an analysis of timed diagnostic traces (TDTs) that are computed by real-time model checking tools, such as UPPAAL, when they detect the violation of a timed safety property. We present an encoding of TDTs in linear real arithmetic and use the MaxSMT capabilities of the SMT solver Z3 to suggest a minimal number of possible syntactic repairs of the analyzed model. The suggested repairs include modified values for clock bounds in location invariants and transition guards, adding or removing clock resets, etc. We then present an admissibility criterion, called functional equivalence, which ensures that the proposed repair preserves the functional behavior of the considered NTA. We discuss a proof-of-concept tool called TarTar that we have developed, implementing the repair and admissibility analysis, and give insights into its design and architecture. We evaluate the proposed repair technique on faulty mutations generated from a diverse suite of case studies taken from the literature. We show that TarTar can admissibly repair for 69–$$88\%$$ 88 % of the seeded errors in the considered system models.

show abstract

An automated system repair framework with signal temporal logic

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Differentiable Inference of Temporal Logic Formulas

Differentiable Inference of Temporal Logic Formulas

Timed Automata Robustness Analysis via Model Checking

Automated repair for timed systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About