Combining Genetic Programming and Model Checking to Generate Environment Assumptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software verification may yield spurious failures when environment assumptions are not accounted for. Environment assumptions are the expectations that a system or a component makes about its operational environment and are often specified in terms of conditions over the inputs of that system or component. In this article, we propose an approach to automatically infer environment assumptions for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). Our approach improves the state-of-the-art in three different ways: First, we learn assumptions for complex CPS models involving signal and numeric variables; second, the learned assumptions include arithmetic expressions defined over multiple variables; third, we identify the trade-off between soundness and coverage of environment assumptions and demonstrate the flexibility of our approach in prioritizing either of these criteria. We evaluate our approach using a public domain benchmark of CPS models from Lockheed Martin and a component of a satellite control system from LuxSpace, a satellite system provider. The results show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art techniques on learning assumptions for CPS models, and further, when applied to our industrial CPS model, our approach is able to learn assumptions that are sufficiently close to the assumptions manually developed by engineers to be of practical value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it