Debugging complex systems is a crucial yet time-consuming task. This paper presents the use of automata learning and testing techniques to obtain concise and informative bug descriptions. We introduce the concepts of Failure Explanations (FE), Eventual Failure Explanations (EFE), and Early Detection (ED) to provide meaningful summaries of failing behavior patterns. By factoring out irrelevant information and focusing on essential test patterns, our approach aims to enhance bug detection and understanding. We evaluate our methods using various test patterns and real-world benchmarks, demonstrating their effectiveness in producing compact and informative bug descriptions.

One of the benefits of using executable specifications such as Behavioral Programming (BP) is the ability to align the system implementation with its requirements. This is facilitated in BP by a protocol that allows independent implementation modules that specify what the system may, must, and must not do. By that, each module can enforce a single system requirement, including negative specifications such as “don't do X after Y.” The existing BP protocol, however, allows only the enforcement of safety requirements and does not support the execution of liveness properties such as “do X at least three times.” To model liveness requirements in BP directly and independently, we propose idioms for tagging states with “must-finish;’ indicating that tasks are yet to be completed. We show that this idiom allows a direct specification of known requirements patterns from the literature. We also offer semantics and two execution mechanisms, one based on a translation to Büchi automata and the other based on a Markov decision process (MDP). The latter approach offers the possibility of utilizing deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms, which bear the potential to handle large software systems effectively. This paper presents a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the proposed approach using a proof-of-concept tool. A formal analysis of the MDP-based execution mechanism is given in an appendix.

We identify and demonstrate a weakness of Petri Nets (PN) in specifying composite behavior of reactive systems. Specifically, we show how, when specifying multiple requirements in one PN model, modelers are obliged to specify mechanisms for combining these requirements. This yields, in many cases, over-specification and incorrect models. We demonstrate how some execution paths are missed, and some are generated unintentionally. To support this claim, we analyze PN models from the literature, identify the combination mechanisms, and demonstrate their effect on the correctness of the model. To address this problem, we propose to model the system behavior using behavioral programming (BP), a software development and modeling paradigm designed for seamless integration of independent requirements. Specifically, we demonstrate how the semantics of BP, which define how to interweave scenarios into a single model, allow for avoiding the over-specification. Additionally, while BP maintains the same mathematical properties as PN, it provides means for changing the model dynamically, thus increasing the agility of the specification. We compare BP and PN in quantitative and qualitative measures by analyzing the models, their generated execution paths, and the specification process. Finally, while BP is supported by tools that allow for applying formal methods and reasoning techniques to the model, it lacks the legacy of PN tools and algorithms. To address this issue, we propose semantics and a tool for translating BP models to PN and vice versa.