Trace Diagnostics for Signal-Based Temporal Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trace checking is a verification technique widely used in Cyber-physical system (CPS) development, to verify whether execution traces satisfy or violate properties expressing system requirements. Often these properties characterize complex signal behaviors and are defined using domain-specific languages, such as SB-TemPsy-DSL, a pattern-based specification language for signal-based temporal properties. Most of the trace-checking tools only yield a Boolean verdict. However, when a property is violated by a trace, engineers usually inspect the trace to understand the cause of the violation; such manual diagnostic is time-consuming and error-prone. Existing approaches that complement trace-checking tools with diagnostic capabilities either produce low-level explanations that are hardly comprehensible by engineers or do not support complex signal-based temporal properties. In this paper, we proposeTD-SB-TemPsy, a trace-diagnostic approach for properties expressed using SB-TemPsy-DSL. Given a property and a trace that violates the property,TD-SB-TemPsydetermines the root cause of the property violation.TD-SB-TemPsyrelies on the concepts ofviolation cause, which characterizes one of the behaviors of the system that may lead to a property violation, anddiagnoses, which are associated with violation causes and provide additional information to help engineers understand the violation cause. As part ofTD-SB-TemPsy, we propose a language-agnostic methodology to define violation causes and diagnoses. In our context, its application resulted in a catalog of 34 violation causes, each associated with one diagnosis, tailored to properties expressed in SB-TemPsy-DSL. We assessed the applicability ofTD-SB-TemPsyon two datasets, including one based on a complex industrial case study. The results show thatTD-SB-TemPsycould finish within a timeout of 1 min for$\approx 83.66\%$of the trace-property combinations in the industrial dataset, yielding a diagnosis in$\approx 99.84\%$of these cases; moreover, it also yielded a diagnosis for all the trace-property combinations in the other dataset. These results suggest that our tool is applicable and efficient in most cases.
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
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".