The pipeline extracts a discrete-time Markov chain from the SUT's token-by-token generation, verifies formal PCTL specifications with the PRISM model checker, and aggregates the per-input verdicts into a coverage curve over the input space, identifying the gap between structural completeness and chemical validity.
Abstract
Test-set accuracy is silent on two issues that matter when deploying autoregressive neural sequence models: how much probability mass the system under test (SUT) places on constraint-violating alternatives that are reachable under sampling and what fraction of the input population satisfies a domain requirement. We answer both with probabilistic model checking. The pipeline extracts a discrete-time Markov chain (DTMC) from the SUT's token-by-token generation, verifies formal PCTL specifications with the PRISM model checker, and aggregates the per-input verdicts into a coverage curve over the input space. A soundness theorem establishes the DTMC as an under-approximation, so every verdict yields a certified interval on the SUT's true reachability probability. The coverage built from those verdicts is, therefore, conservative by construction. A counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) loop adaptively tightens the interval, and a maximum-likelihood algorithm extracts the most probable falsifying trace. Two case studies exercise the pipeline. On a GPT-2 computer-aided process-planning (CAPP) model with 100% test accuracy, the pipeline quantifies the probability mass greedy decoding hides, but that is reachable with sampling; and identifies the smallest training fraction at which an ordering requirement holds population-wide, neither of which test accuracy can report. We then verify the SMILES molecular generator with a 50x larger vocabulary. The only change is an external chemical-validity oracle, and the pipeline identifies the gap between structural completeness and chemical validity.
Interval Markov decision processes (IMDPs) provide a natural framework for modeling stochastic systems with uncertain transition probabilities, represented by probability intervals and resolved adversarially. Such uncertainty arises naturally, for example, when the transition model is learned from finite data or obtain...
Sarvin Bahmani, Soumyajit Paul, Sven Schewe et al.· 0 citations
Bayesian reasoning has emerged as a promising approach to fault localization, where the introduction of errors and their subsequent propagation through faulty executions is treated as a stochastic process. One can then perform Bayesian inference on a probabilistic model encoding the program execution to associate indiv...
Sara Baradaran, Yi-Fei Huang, Wei Le et al.· Proceedings of the ACM on Pr...· 1 citation
Robustness-guided falsification supports the validation of cyber-physical systems by searching for system traces that violate formal temporal requirements. Existing falsification methods typically treat candidate generation as a numerical search over the input space, guided by quantitative robustness feedback. This pap...
Ali Kaya, Ivan Porres· Proceedings of the ACM on So...· 0 citations
Given the safety-critical nature of many embedded systems, their safety assurance is essential. Because such systems are typically stochastic, probabilistic model checking is a particularly important technique. However, there is a well-known scalability issue due to state-space explosion, especially when verifying comp...
T. Matsumoto, Kazuki Watanabe, Masaki Waga· 0 citations
PLVR (Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards): a post training method that learns such programs directly from input-output examples and is released with the symbolic backpropagation library and a conformance checker so the method can be applied to primitive libraries other than the authors' own.
LLM-Falsifier is shown to outperform existing falsification tools based on a range of optimization paradigms, from surrogate-based and Bayesian optimization to search-based testing, on 14 of 21 specifications when measured by the average number of simulations required to find a counterexample.
Ali ArjomandBigdeli, Jia-Wei Zhou, Stanley Bak· 0 citations