Effective Hybrid System Falsification Using Monte Carlo Tree Search Guided by QB-Robustness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybrid system falsification is an important quality assurance method for cyber-physical systems with the advantage of scalability and feasibility in practice than exhaustive verification. Falsification, given a desired temporal specification, tries to find an input of violation instead of a proof guarantee. The state-of-the-art falsification approaches often employ stochastic hill-climbing optimization that minimizes the degree of satisfaction of the temporal specification, given by its quantitativerobust semantics. However, it has been shown that the performance of falsification could be severely affected by the so-calledscale problem, related to the different scales of the signals used in the specification (e.g., rpm and speed): in the robustness computation, the contribution of a signal could bemaskedby another one. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to tackle this problem. We first introduce a new robustness definition, calledQB-Robustness, which combines classical Boolean satisfaction and quantitative robustness. We prove that QB-Robustness can be used to judge the satisfaction of the specification and avoid the scale problem in its computation. QB-Robustness is exploited by a falsification approach based on Monte Carlo Tree Search over the structure of the formal specification. First, tree traversal identifies the sub-formulas for which it is needed to compute the quantitative robustness. Then, on the leaves, numerical hill-climbing optimization is performed, aiming to falsify such sub-formulas. Our in-depth evaluation on multiple benchmarks demonstrates that our approach achieves better falsification results than the state-of-the-art falsification approaches guided by the classical quantitative robustness, and it is largely not affected by the scale problem.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".