61.9SEJun 2
Agentic Generation and Evolution of Knowledge ModelsMan Zhang, Tao Yue, Nazareno M. Aguirre et al.
Complex software systems such as autonomous vehicles, robotics increasingly interact with dynamic physical, cyber, and social environments. Reasoning about their behavior, maintaining them under continuous change, and evolving them safely require trustworthy knowledge about the system, its assumptions, and its operating context. Knowledge models (KMs) provide a practical basis for such reasoning, but they may themselves become incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated as systems evolve. This paper presents TrustModel, a vision for the agentic generation and evolution of living KMs. TrustModel comprises three agentic subsystems: Modeling, for constructing and updating KMs; Conformance, for assessing their alignment with the system and its environment; and Evolution, for generating guidance to keep KMs synchronized with emerging changes. We demonstrate how TrustModel can be instantiated for model-based testing and discuss its potential for supporting other MDE activities, such as requirements and assumption monitoring, architectural drift tracking, and change impact assessment. Overall, TrustModel positions living KMs as a foundation for dependable engineering of continuously evolving software systems.
43.7SEMar 24
SE Journals in 2036: Looking Back at the Future We Need to HaveTim Menzies, Paris Avgeriou, Robert Feldt et al.
In 2025, SE publishing faces an existential crisis of scalability. As our communities swell globally and integrate fast-moving methodologies like LLMs, traditional peer-review practices are collapsing under the strain. The "bureaucratic anomaly" of monolithic review has become mathematically unsustainable, creating a stochastic "lottery" that punishes novelty and exhausts researchers. This paper, written from the perspective of 2036, documents potential solutions. Here, the editors of ASE, EMSE, IST, JSS, TOSEM and TSE dream a collective dream of a brighter future. In summary first we stopped fighting (The Journal Alliance). Then we fixed the process (The Lottery / Unbundling / Fixing the Benchmark Graveyard). And then we fixed the culture (Cathedrals/Bazaars).
AINov 4, 2025
Adaptive GR(1) Specification Repair for Liveness-Preserving Shielding in Reinforcement LearningTiberiu-Andrei Georgescu, Alexander W. Goodall, Dalal Alrajeh et al.
Shielding is widely used to enforce safety in reinforcement learning (RL), ensuring that an agent's actions remain compliant with formal specifications. Classical shielding approaches, however, are often static, in the sense that they assume fixed logical specifications and hand-crafted abstractions. While these static shields provide safety under nominal assumptions, they fail to adapt when environment assumptions are violated. In this paper, we develop the first adaptive shielding framework - to the best of our knowledge - based on Generalized Reactivity of rank 1 (GR(1)) specifications, a tractable and expressive fragment of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) that captures both safety and liveness properties. Our method detects environment assumption violations at runtime and employs Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to automatically repair GR(1) specifications online, in a systematic and interpretable way. This ensures that the shield evolves gracefully, ensuring liveness is achievable and weakening goals only when necessary. We consider two case studies: Minepump and Atari Seaquest; showing that (i) static symbolic controllers are often severely suboptimal when optimizing for auxiliary rewards, and (ii) RL agents equipped with our adaptive shield maintain near-optimal reward and perfect logical compliance compared with static shields.
SEJun 12, 2017
Verification CoverageRodrigo Castaño, Victor Braberman, Diego Garbervetsky et al.
Software Model Checkers have shown outstanding performance improvements in recent times. Moreover, for specific use cases, formal verification techniques have shown to be highly effective, leading to a number of high-profile success stories. However, widespread adoption remains unlikely in the short term and one of the remaining obstacles in that direction is the vast number of instances which software model checkers cannot fully analyze within reasonable memory and CPU bounds. The majority of verification tools fail to provide a measure of progress or any intermediate verification result when such situations occur. Inspired in the success that coverage metrics have achieved in industry, we propose to adapt the definition of coverage to the context of verification. We discuss some of the challenges in pinning down a definition that resembles the deeply rooted semantics of test coverage. Subsequently we propose a definition for a broad family of verification techniques: those based on Abstract Reachability Trees. Moreover, we discuss a general approach to computing an under-approximation of such metric and a specific heuristic to improve the performance. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation to assess the viability of our approach.
SEJul 22, 2016
Model Checker Execution ReportsRodrigo Castaño, Victor Braberman, Diego Garbervetsky et al.
Software model checking constitutes an undecidable problem and, as such, even an ideal tool will in some cases fail to give a conclusive answer. In practice, software model checkers fail often and usually do not provide any information on what was effectively checked. The purpose of this work is to provide a conceptual framing to extend software model checkers in a way that allows users to access information about incomplete checks. We characterize the information that model checkers themselves can provide, in terms of analyzed traces, i.e. sequences of statements, and safe cones, and present the notion of execution reports, which we also formalize. We instantiate these concepts for a family of techniques based on Abstract Reachability Trees and implement the approach using the software model checker CPAchecker. We evaluate our approach empirically and provide examples to illustrate the execution reports produced and the information that can be extracted.
SEApr 30, 2015
MORPH: A Reference Architecture for Configuration and Behaviour Self-AdaptationVictor Braberman, Nicolas D'Ippolito, Jeff Kramer et al.
An architectural approach to self-adaptive systems involves runtime change of system configuration (i.e., the system's components, their bindings and operational parameters) and behaviour update (i.e., component orchestration). Thus, dynamic reconfiguration and discrete event control theory are at the heart of architectural adaptation. Although controlling configuration and behaviour at runtime has been discussed and applied to architectural adaptation, architectures for self-adaptive systems often compound these two aspects reducing the potential for adaptability. In this paper we propose a reference architecture that allows for coordinated yet transparent and independent adaptation of system configuration and behaviour.