用于自动机学习的学习和测试算法的基准组合

IF 1.4 4区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
B. Aichernig, Martin Tappler, Felix Wallner
{"title":"用于自动机学习的学习和测试算法的基准组合","authors":"B. Aichernig, Martin Tappler, Felix Wallner","doi":"10.1145/3605360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Automata learning enables model-based analysis of black-box systems by automatically constructing models from system observations, which are often collected via testing. The required testing budget to learn adequate models heavily depends on the applied learning and testing techniques. Test cases executed for learning (1) collect behavioural information and (2) falsify learned hypothesis automata. Falsification test-cases are commonly selected through conformance testing. Active learning algorithms additionally implement test-case selection strategies to gain information, whereas passive algorithms derive models solely from given data. In an active setting, such algorithms require external test-case selection, like repeated conformance testing to extend the available data. There exist various approaches to learning and conformance testing, where interdependencies among them affect performance. We investigate the performance of combinations of six learning algorithms, including a passive algorithm, and seven testing algorithms, by performing experiments using 153 benchmark models. We discuss insights regarding the performance of different configurations for various types of systems. Our findings may provide guidance for future users of automata learning. For example, counterexample processing during learning strongly impacts efficiency, which is further affected by testing approach and system type. Testing with the random Wp-method performs best overall, while mutation-based testing performs well on smaller models.","PeriodicalId":50432,"journal":{"name":"Formal Aspects of Computing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking Combinations of Learning and Testing Algorithms for Automata Learning\",\"authors\":\"B. Aichernig, Martin Tappler, Felix Wallner\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3605360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Automata learning enables model-based analysis of black-box systems by automatically constructing models from system observations, which are often collected via testing. The required testing budget to learn adequate models heavily depends on the applied learning and testing techniques. Test cases executed for learning (1) collect behavioural information and (2) falsify learned hypothesis automata. Falsification test-cases are commonly selected through conformance testing. Active learning algorithms additionally implement test-case selection strategies to gain information, whereas passive algorithms derive models solely from given data. In an active setting, such algorithms require external test-case selection, like repeated conformance testing to extend the available data. There exist various approaches to learning and conformance testing, where interdependencies among them affect performance. We investigate the performance of combinations of six learning algorithms, including a passive algorithm, and seven testing algorithms, by performing experiments using 153 benchmark models. We discuss insights regarding the performance of different configurations for various types of systems. Our findings may provide guidance for future users of automata learning. For example, counterexample processing during learning strongly impacts efficiency, which is further affected by testing approach and system type. Testing with the random Wp-method performs best overall, while mutation-based testing performs well on smaller models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Formal Aspects of Computing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Formal Aspects of Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3605360\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Formal Aspects of Computing","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3605360","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自动机学习通过从系统观测值自动构建模型,实现了对黑匣子系统的基于模型的分析,这些观测值通常是通过测试收集的。学习足够模型所需的测试预算在很大程度上取决于应用的学习和测试技术。为学习而执行的测试用例(1)收集行为信息,(2)伪造学习到的假设自动机。伪造测试用例通常是通过一致性测试来选择的。主动学习算法还实现了测试用例选择策略以获取信息,而被动算法仅从给定数据中导出模型。在活动设置中,此类算法需要外部测试用例选择,如重复一致性测试以扩展可用数据。存在各种学习和一致性测试方法,它们之间的相互依赖性会影响性能。我们通过使用153个基准模型进行实验,研究了六种学习算法(包括一种被动算法和七种测试算法)的组合的性能。我们讨论了关于不同类型系统的不同配置的性能的见解。我们的发现可能为未来的自动机学习用户提供指导。例如,学习过程中的反例处理强烈影响效率,而效率又受到测试方法和系统类型的影响。随机Wp方法的测试总体表现最好,而基于突变的测试在较小的模型上表现良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benchmarking Combinations of Learning and Testing Algorithms for Automata Learning
Automata learning enables model-based analysis of black-box systems by automatically constructing models from system observations, which are often collected via testing. The required testing budget to learn adequate models heavily depends on the applied learning and testing techniques. Test cases executed for learning (1) collect behavioural information and (2) falsify learned hypothesis automata. Falsification test-cases are commonly selected through conformance testing. Active learning algorithms additionally implement test-case selection strategies to gain information, whereas passive algorithms derive models solely from given data. In an active setting, such algorithms require external test-case selection, like repeated conformance testing to extend the available data. There exist various approaches to learning and conformance testing, where interdependencies among them affect performance. We investigate the performance of combinations of six learning algorithms, including a passive algorithm, and seven testing algorithms, by performing experiments using 153 benchmark models. We discuss insights regarding the performance of different configurations for various types of systems. Our findings may provide guidance for future users of automata learning. For example, counterexample processing during learning strongly impacts efficiency, which is further affected by testing approach and system type. Testing with the random Wp-method performs best overall, while mutation-based testing performs well on smaller models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Formal Aspects of Computing
Formal Aspects of Computing 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal aims to publish contributions at the junction of theory and practice. The objective is to disseminate applicable research. Thus new theoretical contributions are welcome where they are motivated by potential application; applications of existing formalisms are of interest if they show something novel about the approach or application. In particular, the scope of Formal Aspects of Computing includes: well-founded notations for the description of systems; verifiable design methods; elucidation of fundamental computational concepts; approaches to fault-tolerant design; theorem-proving support; state-exploration tools; formal underpinning of widely used notations and methods; formal approaches to requirements analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信