pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03870 · v1 · pith:P2KGVI4Inew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.SE

Automated Repair of Requirements for Cyber-Physical Systems in Simulink Requirements Tables

Aren A. Babikian , Alessio Di Sandro , Federico Formica , Claudio Menghi , Marsha Chechik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 08:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords requirements repaircyber-physical systemsSimulink Requirements Tablesautomated repaircompliancerequirements engineeringmodel-based developmentCPS
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework repairs misaligned CPS requirements by analyzing execution data in Simulink tables.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a method to restore alignment between requirements and cyber-physical system implementations when the two have diverged due to independent updates. It does so by feeding execution traces into an analysis that identifies and corrects problems in declarative requirements written in the Simulink Requirements Tables language. The approach treats the requirements as statements about time-based real-valued signals and produces revised versions that the system satisfies. A reader would care because it supplies an automated counterpart to the more common practice of repairing code while leaving requirements untouched. Evaluation on six real case studies with twelve requirements shows the method yields repairs judged correct and useful.

Core claim

By using traces collected from system executions, the framework can automatically repair declarative requirements expressed in the Simulink Requirements Tables language so that they once again hold for the current implementation of a cyber-physical system.

What carries the argument

A framework that evaluates declarative requirements over time-based real-valued signals and generates repairs from execution data.

If this is right

  • The repaired requirements restore compliance between the stated requirements and the updated system.
  • Seven variants of the framework succeed on six real-world case studies that cover twelve requirements.
  • The repairs are both formally correct with respect to the traces and judged useful in practice.
  • The method applies directly to requirements written as tables over continuous-time signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same data-driven repair idea could be tried on requirement languages used outside Simulink.
  • Embedding the repair step inside a continuous-integration loop might keep requirements current with each code change.
  • Pairing requirement repair with existing program-repair tools could address misalignment from both directions.

Load-bearing premise

Execution traces collected from the running system accurately indicate whether the stated requirements hold over the observed signals.

What would settle it

A set of traces on which the framework produces a repair that domain experts later judge as failing to capture the intended requirement behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03870 by Alessio Di Sandro, Aren A. Babikian, Claudio Menghi, Federico Formica, Marsha Chechik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative example of requirement-to-system compliance and its loss due to system evolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example input and output signals for the Automatic Transmission model. Signals are shown in blue; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows a fragment of the depicted signal values for time step indices {134, 142, 150, 158, 166}. 𝑖 134 142 150 158 166 𝜄𝑇 (𝑖) 5.08 5.40 5.72 6.04 6.36 𝜄𝑈 (𝑖, 𝑢𝑏 ) 167.01 173.76 180.52 187.28 194.04 𝜄𝑈 (𝑖, 𝑢𝑡 ) 99.80 99.50 98.82 97.76 96.31 𝜄𝑉 (𝑖, 𝑣𝑒 ) 4292.76 4426.50 4547.49 4660.00 4764.85 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Requirements Tables: Syntax, with 𝑐 ∈ R, 𝑣 ∈ V, ⊙ ∈ {+, −, ∗, /}, ⊕ ∈ {>, <, ≤, ≥, =, ≠}, ⊘ ∈ {∧, ∨, ⇒}. 𝑟 ≡ 𝑝𝑟𝑒 ⇒ 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡, 𝑝𝑟𝑒 ≡ 0 ≤ 𝑢𝑡 ≤ 100 ∧ 0 ≤ 𝑢𝑏 ≤ 325, 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 ≡ 𝑣𝑒 ≤ 4650 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantitative Semantics of Requirements Tables [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Box plots of the cumulative Satisfaction Extent and Syntactic Similarity for each variant. requirements with a non-optimal Correctness score (i.e., greater than 0), since they correspond to requirements that are not satisfied by all traces in the trace suite. We further remove all derived repaired requirements with non-optimal Semantic Integrity (𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑚 > 0), since they represent repaired requirements that a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The development of complex software systems, e.g., cyber-physical systems (CPSs), involves continuous evolution of both system implementations and their requirements. These two artifacts often proceed independently, creating a risk of misalignment. For example, a system may be updated due to implementation-level concerns, yielding a new version that no longer satisfies its original requirements. Traditional compliance recovery techniques, e.g., automated program repair, address this problem by modifying the system while assuming that requirements are correct. However, faulty, outdated or inadequate requirements are a well-documented challenge in practice, motivating the complementary task of requirement repair. In this paper, we propose a framework that leverages system execution data to repair misaligned CPS requirements, thereby restoring requirement-to-system compliance. Our approach evaluates the correctness of declarative requirements over time-based, real-valued signals expressed using the MATLAB Simulink Requirements Tables language. We evaluate seven variants of our framework on six real-world case studies covering 12 requirements. Results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed framework in producing correct and useful repaired requirements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that uses system execution data to repair misaligned declarative requirements for cyber-physical systems expressed in the Simulink Requirements Tables language. It evaluates seven variants of the approach on six real-world case studies covering 12 requirements and claims that the results confirm the framework's effectiveness in producing correct and useful repaired requirements.

Significance. If the evaluation is shown to be non-circular and the correctness metric is demonstrated to have sound semantics for time-based signals, the work would address a practical problem in CPS development where requirements and implementations evolve independently. The focus on requirement repair (as opposed to program repair) is a useful complement to existing techniques.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts positive results from seven variants on six case studies but supplies no evaluation metrics, baselines, or details on how correctness of repaired requirements was measured, preventing assessment of whether the data supports the claim.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The framework extracts candidate repairs from execution traces and scores them for correctness on traces; without an independent oracle, held-out validation set, or domain-expert judgment separate from the synthesis data, it is unclear whether the scoring distinguishes intended behavior from incidental trace properties or avoids overfitting.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Consider adding one sentence summarizing the correctness metric and any baseline comparisons used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the practical relevance of requirement repair as a complement to program repair in CPS development. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts positive results from seven variants on six case studies but supplies no evaluation metrics, baselines, or details on how correctness of repaired requirements was measured, preventing assessment of whether the data supports the claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, constrained by length, omits specific metrics, baselines, and measurement details. These are reported in the Evaluation section, where we describe the seven variants, the 12 requirements across six case studies, and correctness as the degree to which a repaired requirement is satisfied by the execution traces. To improve standalone readability, we will revise the abstract to include a concise statement of the primary metrics and the trace-based correctness criterion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The framework extracts candidate repairs from execution traces and scores them for correctness on traces; without an independent oracle, held-out validation set, or domain-expert judgment separate from the synthesis data, it is unclear whether the scoring distinguishes intended behavior from incidental trace properties or avoids overfitting.

    Authors: This concern about evaluation circularity is valid. The framework is explicitly designed to restore alignment between requirements and observed system behavior; therefore the same traces are used both to generate candidates and to score them. We evaluated seven variants on 12 requirements from six real-world case studies to demonstrate robustness across different repair strategies. However, the current study does not include a held-out validation set or separate domain-expert judgment. We will revise the Evaluation section to explicitly discuss this limitation, the risk that repairs may capture incidental trace properties, and how the multi-variant design provides some mitigation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in claimed results or evaluation

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical framework for requirement repair evaluated on six real-world case studies with 12 requirements. No equations, derivations, or self-referential definitions appear in the abstract or described approach. The central claim of effectiveness rests on case-study outcomes rather than any reduction of predictions to fitted inputs or self-citations. The evaluation uses execution traces for both repair and correctness assessment, but this is standard for trace-driven synthesis techniques and does not constitute a by-construction equivalence or load-bearing self-reference. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5719 in / 984 out tokens · 24849 ms · 2026-06-28T08:42:24.850998+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Alessandro Abate, Matthias Althoff, Lei Bu, Gidon Ernst, Goran Frehse, Luca Geretti, Taylor T Johnson, Claudio Menghi, Stefan Mitsch, Stefan Schupp, et al. 2023. The ARCH-COMP friendly verification competition for continuous and hybrid systems. InInternational TOOLympics Challenge. Springer Nature Switzerland Cham, 1–37

    2023

  2. [2]

    Ankit Agrawal and Jane Cleland-Huang. 2023. Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process. In2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). 475–478. doi:10.1109/REW57809.2023.00089

    work page doi:10.1109/rew57809.2023.00089 2023

  3. [3]

    Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson

    Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. 1985. On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions.The Journal of Symbolic Logic50, 2 (1985), 510–530

    1985

  4. [4]

    Connectionist Temporal Sequence De- coding: M-ary Hopfield Neural-Network with Multi-limit Cycle Formulation

    Nicholas Annable, Mehrnoosh Askarpour, Thomas Chiang, Sahar Kokaly, Mark Lawford, Richard F. Paige, Ramesh Sethu, and Alan Wassyng. 2024. Comprehensive Change Impact Analysis Applied to Advanced Automotive Systems. InComputer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 134–149. doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 68606-1_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2024

  5. [5]

    Gabriel Araujo, Ricardo Caldas, Federico Formica, Genaína Rodrigues, Patrizio Pelliccione, and Claudio Menghi. 2024. Search-Based Trace Diagnostic. arXiv:2406.17268 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.17268

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.17268 2024

  6. [6]

    Aitor Arrieta, Pablo Valle, and Shaukat Ali. 2024. Search-Based Automated Program Repair of CPS Controllers Modeled in Simulink-Stateflow. arXiv:2404.04688 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.04688

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.04688 2024

  7. [7]

    Babikian, Alessio Di Sandro, Federico Formica, Claudio Menghi, and Marsha Chechik

    Aren A. Babikian, Alessio Di Sandro, Federico Formica, Claudio Menghi, and Marsha Chechik. 2026. Automated Repair of Requirements for Cyber-Physical Systems in Simulink Requirements Tables: Replication Package. doi:10.5281/zeno do.19488528

    work page doi:10.5281/zeno 2026

  8. [8]

    Briand, and Thomas Stifter

    Raja Ben Abdessalem, Annibale Panichella, Shiva Nejati, Lionel C. Briand, and Thomas Stifter. 2020. Automated Repair of Feature Interaction Failures in Automated Driving Systems. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 88–100. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3395363.3397386 2020

  9. [9]

    Elizabeth Bjarnason, Per Runeson, Markus Borg, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Emelie Engström, Björn Regnell, Giedre Sabaliauskaite, Annabella Loconsole, Tony Gorschek, and Robert Feldt. 2014. Challenges and Practices in Aligning Requirements with Verification and Validation: A Case Study of Six Companies.Empirical Software Engineering19, 6 (2014), 1809–1855

    2014

  10. [10]

    Chaima Boufaied, Claudio Menghi, Domenico Bianculli, Lionel Briand, and Yago Isasi Parache. 2021. Trace-Checking Signal-Based Temporal Properties: A Model-Driven Approach. InProceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering(New York, NY, USA, 2021-01-27)(ASE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, 1004–1015. do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3324884.3416631 2021

  11. [11]

    Chaima Boufaied, Claudio Menghi, Domenico Bianculli, and Lionel C. Briand. 2023. Trace Diagnostics for Signal-Based Temporal Properties.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering49, 5 (2023), 3131–3154. doi:10.1109/TSE.2023.3242588

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3242588 2023

  12. [12]

    Peter Braun, Manfred Broy, Frank Houdek, Matthias Kirchmayr, Mark Müller, Birgit Penzenstadler, Klaus Pohl, and Thorsten Weyer. 2014. Guiding Requirements Engineering for Software-Intensive Embedded Systems in the Automotive Industry.Computer Science - Research and Development29, 1 (2014), 21–43

    2014

  13. [13]

    Titus Buckworth, Dalal Alrajeh, Jeff Kramer, and Sebastian Uchitel. 2023. Adapting Specifications for Reactive Controllers. In2023 IEEE/ACM 18th Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS). 1–12. doi:10.1109/SEAMS59076.2023.00012

    work page doi:10.1109/seams59076.2023.00012 2023

  14. [14]

    Cavezza, Dalal Alrajeh, and András György

    Davide G. Cavezza, Dalal Alrajeh, and András György. 2020. Minimal Assumptions Refinement for Realizable Specifications. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering(New York, NY, USA)(FormaliSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, 66–76. doi:10.1145/3372020.3391557

    work page doi:10.1145/3372020.3391557 2020

  15. [15]

    Cobleigh, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, and Corina S

    Jamieson M. Cobleigh, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, and Corina S. Păsăreanu. 2003. Learning Assumptions for Composi- tional Verification. InTools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 331–346. doi:10.1007/3-540-36577-X_24

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-36577-x_24 2003

  16. [16]

    Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. InTools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 337–340. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 2008

  17. [17]

    K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation6, 2 (April 2002), 182–197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017

    work page doi:10.1109/4235.996017 2002

  18. [18]

    Favio DeMarco, Jifeng Xuan, Daniel Le Berre, and Martin Monperrus. 2014. Automatic Repair of Buggy If Conditions and Missing Preconditions with SMT. InProceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Constraints in Software Testing, Verification, and Analysis (CSTV A 2014). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 30–39. doi:10.1145/2593735.2593740

    work page doi:10.1145/2593735.2593740 2014

  19. [19]

    Thomas Durieux and Martin Monperrus. 2016. DynaMoth: Dynamic Code Synthesis for Automatic Program Repair. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85–91. doi:10.1145/2896921.2896931 Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., Vol. 3, No. FSE, Article FSE201. Publication ...

    work page doi:10.1145/2896921.2896931 2016

  20. [20]

    Gidon Ernst, Paolo Arcaini, Ismail Bennani, Aniruddh Chandratre, Alexandre Donzé, Georgios Fainekos, Goran Frehse, Khouloud Gaaloul, Jun Inoue, Tanmay Khandait, Logan Mathesen, Claudio Menghi, Giulia Pedrielli, Marc Pouzet, Masaki Waga, Shakiba Yaghoubi, Yoriyuki Yamagata, and Zhenya Zhang. 2021. ARCH-COMP 2021 Category Report: Falsification with Validati...

    work page doi:10.29007/xwl1 2021

  21. [21]

    Gidon Ernst, Paolo Arcaini, Ismail Bennani, Alexandre Donze, Georgios Fainekos, Goran Frehse, Logan Mathesen, Claudio Menghi, Giulia Pedrielli, Marc Pouzet, Shakiba Yaghoubi, Yoriyuki Yamagata, and Zhenya Zhang. 2020. ARCH- COMP 2020 Category Report: Falsification. InARCH20. 7th International Workshop on Applied Verification of Continuous and Hybrid Syste...

    work page doi:10.29007/trr1 2020

  22. [22]

    Gidon Ernst, Paolo Arcaini, Georgios Fainekos, Federico Formica, Jun Inoue, Tanmay Khandait, Mohammad Mahdi Mahboob, Claudio Menghi, Giulia Pedrielli, Masaki Waga, Yoriyuki Yamagata, and Zhenya Zhang. 2022. ARCH-COMP 2022 Category Report: Falsification with Ubounded Resources. InProceedings of 9th International Workshop on Applied Verification of Continuo...

    work page doi:10.29007/fhnk 2022

  23. [23]

    Ernst, Jake Cockrell, William G

    Michael D. Ernst, Jake Cockrell, William G. Griswold, and David Notkin. 1999. Dynamically Discovering Likely Program Invariants to Support Program Evolution. InProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 213–224. doi:10.1145/302405.302467

    work page doi:10.1145/302405.302467 1999

  24. [24]

    Georgios Fainekos, Bardh Hoxha, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2019. Robustness of specifications and its applications to falsification, parameter mining, and runtime monitoring with S-TaLiRo. InInternational Conference on Runtime Verification. Springer, 27–47

    2019

  25. [25]

    Federico Formica, Tony Fan, Akshay Rajhans, Vera Pantelic, Mark Lawford, and Claudio Menghi. 2024. Simulation- Based Testing of Simulink Models With Test Sequence and Test Assessment Blocks.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering50, 2 (Feb. 2024), 239–257. doi:10.1109/TSE.2023.3343753

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3343753 2024

  26. [26]

    Federico Formica, Chris George, Shayda Rahmatyan, Vera Pantelic, Mark Lawford, Angelo Gargantini, and Claudio Menghi. 2025. Search-Based Testing of Simulink Models with Requirements Tables. arXiv:2501.05412 [cs] doi:10.48550 /arXiv.2501.05412

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Félix-Antoine Fortin, François-Michel De Rainville, Marc-André Gardner, Marc Parizeau, and Christian Gagné. 2012. DEAP: Evolutionary Algorithms Made Easy.Journal of Machine Learning Research13 (jul 2012), 2171–2175

    2012

  28. [28]

    Kolovos, Nicholas Matragkas, and Richard F

    M¯artin, š Francis, Dimitrios S. Kolovos, Nicholas Matragkas, and Richard F. Paige. 2013. Adding Spreadsheets to the MDE Toolkit. InModel-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems(Berlin, Heidelberg). Springer, 35–51

    2013

  29. [29]

    Briand, and Yago Isasi Parache

    Khouloud Gaaloul, Claudio Menghi, Shiva Nejati, Lionel C. Briand, and Yago Isasi Parache. 2022. Combining Genetic Programming and Model Checking to Generate Environment Assumptions.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 9 (Sept. 2022), 3664–3685. doi:10.1109/TSE.2021.3101818

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3101818 2022

  30. [30]

    Khouloud Gaaloul, Claudio Menghi, Shiva Nejati, Lionel C Briand, and David Wolfe. 2020. Mining assumptions for software components using machine learning. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 159–171

    2020

  31. [31]

    Hunter, Myra B

    Usman Gohar, Michael C. Hunter, Myra B. Cohen, and Robyn R. Lutz. 2025.A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases. arXiv:2502.00238 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.00238

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00238 2025

  32. [32]

    John Hatcliff, Alan Wassyng, Tim Kelly, Cyrille Comar, and Paul Jones. 2014. Certifiably Safe Software-Dependent Systems: Challenges and Directions. InFuture of Software Engineering Proceedings(New York, NY, USA)(FOSE 2014). Association for Computing Machinery, 182–200

    2014

  33. [33]

    Tim Henderson. [n. d.].ZSS Python library. https://zhang-shasha.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ v1.2.0

  34. [35]

    Bardh Hoxha, Houssam Abbas, and Georgios Fainekos. 2015. Benchmarks for Temporal Logic Requirements for Automotive Systems. InARCH14-15. International Workshop on Applied veRification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems (EPiC Series in Computing). EasyChair, 25–30. doi:10.29007/xwrs

    work page doi:10.29007/xwrs 2015

  35. [36]

    Jinru Hua, Mengshi Zhang, Kaiyuan Wang, and Sarfraz Khurshid. 2018. Towards Practical Program Repair with On-Demand Candidate Generation. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12–23. doi:10.1145/3180155.3180245

    work page doi:10.1145/3180155.3180245 2018

  36. [37]

    2004.Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and reasoning about systems

    Michael Huth and Mark Ryan. 2004.Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and reasoning about systems. Cambridge university press

    2004

  37. [38]

    Jiajun Jiang, Yingfei Xiong, Hongyu Zhang, Qing Gao, and Xiangqun Chen. 2018. Shaping Program Repair Space with Existing Patches and Similar Code. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 298–309. doi:10.1145/32 13846.3213871 Proc. A...

    work page doi:10.1145/32 2018

  38. [39]

    Xiaoqing Jin, Jyotirmoy V Deshmukh, James Kapinski, Koichi Ueda, and Ken Butts. 2014. Powertrain control verification benchmark. InInternational conference on Hybrid systems: computation and control. ACM, 253–262

    2014

  39. [40]

    Tanmay Khandait, Federico Formica, Paolo Arcaini, Surdeep Chotaliya, Georgios Fainekos, Abdelrahman Hekal, Atanu Kundu, Ethan Lew, Michele Loreti, Claudio Menghi, Laura Nenzi, Giulia Pedrielli, Jarkko Peltomäki, Ivan Porres, Rajarshi Ray, Valentin Soloviev, Ennio Visconti, Masaki Waga, and Zhenya Zhang. 2024. ARCH-COMP 2024 Category Report: Falsification....

    work page doi:10.29007/hgfv 2024

  40. [42]

    Sahar Kokaly, Rick Salay, Marsha Chechik, Mark Lawford, and Tom Maibaum. 2017. Safety Case Impact Assessment in Automotive Software Systems: An Improved Model-Based Approach. InComputer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 69–85. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66266-4_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66266-4_5 2017

  41. [43]

    Le, Duc-Hiep Chu, David Lo, Claire Le Goues, and Willem Visser

    Xuan-Bach D. Le, Duc-Hiep Chu, David Lo, Claire Le Goues, and Willem Visser. 2017. S3: Syntax- and Semantic-Guided Repair Synthesis via Programming by Examples. InProceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, Paderborn Germany, 593–604. doi:10.1145/3106237.3106309

    work page doi:10.1145/3106237.3106309 2017

  42. [44]

    Claire Le Goues, ThanhVu Nguyen, Stephanie Forrest, and Westley Weimer. 2012. GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering38, 1 (Jan. 2012), 54–72. doi:10.1109/TSE.2011.104

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2011.104 2012

  43. [45]

    Bo Lin, Shangwen Wang, Ming Wen, Liqian Chen, and Xiaoguang Mao. 2024. One Size Does Not Fit All: Multi- granularity Patch Generation for Better Automated Program Repair. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT Interna- tional Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1554–1566. doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3680381 2024

  44. [46]

    AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violations

    Kui Liu, Anil Koyuncu, Dongsun Kim, and Tegawendé F. Bisyandé. 2019. AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violations. arXiv:1812.07270 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.1812.07270

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.07270 2019

  45. [47]

    Xuliang Liu and Hao Zhong. 2018. Mining Stackoverflow for Program Repair. In2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 118–129. doi:10.1109/SANER.2018.8330202

    work page doi:10.1109/saner.2018.8330202 2018

  46. [48]

    Dipeeka Luitel, Shiva Nejati, and Mehrdad Sabetzadeh. 2024. Requirements-Driven Slicing of Simulink Models using LLMs. In2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). 72–82. doi:10.1109/RE W61692.2024.00014

    work page doi:10.1109/re 2024

  47. [49]

    Oded Maler and Dejan Nickovic. 2004. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. InInternational symposium on formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems. Springer, 152–166

    2004

  48. [50]

    Shahar Maoz, Jan Oliver Ringert, and Rafi Shalom. 2019. Symbolic Repairs for GR(1) Specifications. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1016–1026

    2019

  49. [51]

    Martins and Tony Gorschek

    Luiz Eduardo G. Martins and Tony Gorschek. 2016. Requirements Engineering for Safety-Critical Systems: A Systematic Literature Review.Information and Software Technology75 (2016), 71–89

    2016

  50. [52]

    MathWorks. 2022. Simulink ®. Release R2022b. https://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink.html

    2022

  51. [53]

    Anastasia Mavridou, Hamza Bourbouh, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, Thomas Pressburger, Mohammad Hejase, Pierre-Loic Garoche, and Johann Schumann. 2020. The ten lockheed martin cyber-physical challenges: formalized, analyzed, and explained. InInternational Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE, 300–310

    2020

  52. [54]

    Sergey Mechtaev, Jooyong Yi, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2015. DirectFix: Looking for Simple Program Repairs. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1 (ICSE ’15). IEEE Press, Florence, Italy, 448–458

    2015

  53. [55]

    Claudio Menghi, Paolo Arcaini, Walstan Baptista, Gidon Ernst, Georgios Fainekos, Federico Formica, Sauvik Gon, Tanmay Khandait, Atanu Kundu, Giulia Pedrielli, Jarkko Peltomäki, Ivan Porres, Rajarshi Ray, Masaki Waga, and Zhenya Zhang. 2023. ARCH-COMP23 Category Report: Falsification. InProceedings of 10th International Workshop on Applied Verification of ...

    work page doi:10.29007/6nqs 2023

  54. [57]

    Claudio Menghi, Eugene Balai, Darren Valovcin, Christoph Sticksel, and Akshay Rajhans. 2025. Completeness and Consistency of Tabular Requirements: An SMT-Based Verification Approach.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 51, 2 (2025), 595–620. doi:10.1109/TSE.2025.3530820

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2025.3530820 2025

  55. [58]

    Claudio Menghi, Shiva Nejati, Lionel Briand, and Yago Isasi Parache. 2020. Approximation-Refinement Testing of Compute-Intensive Cyber-Physical Models: An Approach Based on System Identification. InInternational Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE/ACM, 372–384. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., Vol. 3, No. FSE, Article FSE201. Publication date: July 2026. FSE20...

    2020

  56. [59]

    Claudio Menghi, Enrico Viganò, Domenico Bianculli, and Lionel C. Briand. 2021. Trace-Checking CPS Properties: Bridging the Cyber-Physical Gap. In2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 847–859. doi:10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00082

    work page doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00082 2021

  57. [60]

    Facundo Molina, Juan Manuel Copia, and Alessandra Gorla. 2024. Improving Patch Correctness Analysis via Random Testing and Large Language Models. In2024 IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). 317–328. doi:10.1109/ICST60714.2024.00036

    work page doi:10.1109/icst60714.2024.00036 2024

  58. [61]

    James Whitehead

    Kai Pan, Sunghun Kim, and E. James Whitehead. 2009. Toward an Understanding of Bug Fix Patterns.Empirical Softw. Engg.14, 3 (June 2009), 286–315. doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9077-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9077-5 2009

  59. [62]

    2015.The Interpretation and Evaluation of Assurance Cases

    John Rushby. 2015.The Interpretation and Evaluation of Assurance Cases. Technical Report SRI-CSL-15-01. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Available at http://www.csl.sri.com/users/rushby/papers/sri- csl-15-1-assurance-cases.pdf

    2015

  60. [63]

    Saha, Yingjun Lyu, Hiroaki Yoshida, and Mukul R

    Ripon K. Saha, Yingjun Lyu, Hiroaki Yoshida, and Mukul R. Prasad. 2017. ELIXIR: Effective Object Oriented Program Repair. InProceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’17). IEEE Press, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, 648–659

    2017

  61. [64]

    1989.Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer

    Gerard Salton. 1989.Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc

    1989

  62. [65]

    Stephan Schneider, Jan Wollersheim, Helmut Krcmar, and Ali Sunyaev. 2018. How Do Requirements Evolve over Time? A Case Study Investigating the Role of Context and Experiences in the Evolution of Enterprise Software Requirements. Journal of Information Technology33, 2 (2018), 151–170. doi:10.1057/s41265-016-0001-y

    work page doi:10.1057/s41265-016-0001-y 2018

  63. [66]

    Nikhil Kumar Singh and Indranil Saha. 2020. Specification-Guided Automated Debugging of CPS Models.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems39, 11 (Nov. 2020), 4142–4153. doi:10.1109/ TCAD.2020.3012862

    arXiv 2020

  64. [67]

    Uusitalo, Marko Komssi, Marjo Kauppinen, and Alan M

    Eero J. Uusitalo, Marko Komssi, Marjo Kauppinen, and Alan M. Davis. 2008. Linking Requirements and Testing in Practice. In2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. 265–270. doi:10.1109/RE.2008.30

    work page doi:10.1109/re.2008.30 2008

  65. [68]

    Pablo Valle, Aitor Arrieta, and Maite Arratibel. 2023. Automated Misconfiguration Repair of Configurable Cyber- Physical Systems with Search: An Industrial Case Study on Elevator Dispatching Algorithms. In2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). 396–408. doi:10.1109/IC SE-SEIP58684....

    work page doi:10.1109/ic 2023

  66. [69]

    Pablo Valle, Aitor Arrieta, Liping Han, Shaukat Ali, and Tao Yue. 2025. Defining and generating multi-level and uncertainty-wise test oracles for cyber-physical systems.Software and Systems Modeling24, 3 (2025), 679–704. doi:10.1007/s10270-025-01271-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-025-01271-8 2025

  67. [70]

    Ming Wen, Junjie Chen, Rongxin Wu, Dan Hao, and Shing-Chi Cheung. 2018. Context-Aware Patch Generation for Better Automated Program Repair. In2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1–11. doi:10.1145/3180155.3180233

    work page doi:10.1145/3180155.3180233 2018

  68. [71]

    Chunqiu Steven Xia and Lingming Zhang. 2024. Automated Program Repair via Conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 Bugs for $0.42 Each Using ChatGPT. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 819–831. doi:10.1145/3650212.3680323

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3680323 2024

  69. [72]

    Jifeng Xuan, Matias Martinez, Favio DeMarco, Maxime Clément, Sebastian Lamelas Marcote, Thomas Durieux, Daniel Le Berre, and Martin Monperrus. 2017. Nopol: Automatic Repair of Conditional Statement Bugs in Java Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering43, 1 (Jan. 2017), 34–55. doi:10.1109/TSE.2016.2560811

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2560811 2017

  70. [73]

    Bissyandé, and Shunfu Jin

    Boyang Yang, Haoye Tian, Weiguo Pian, Haoran Yu, Haitao Wang, Jacques Klein, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé, and Shunfu Jin. 2024. CREF: An LLM-Based Conversational Software Repair Framework for Programming Tutors. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3680328 2024

  71. [74]

    Xin Yin, Chao Ni, Shaohua Wang, Zhenhao Li, Limin Zeng, and Xiaohu Yang. 2024. ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repair. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1274–1286. doi:10.1145/3650212.36 80359

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.36 2024

  72. [75]

    Jialu Zhang, José Pablo Cambronero, Sumit Gulwani, Vu Le, Ruzica Piskac, Gustavo Soares, and Gust Verbruggen. 2024. PyDex: Repairing Bugs in Introductory Python Assignments Using LLMs.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.8, OOPSLA1 (April 2024), 133:1100–133:1124. doi:10.1145/3649850

    work page doi:10.1145/3649850 2024

  73. [76]

    Kaizhong Zhang and Dennis Shasha. 1989. Simple Fast Algorithms for the Editing Distance between Trees and Related Problems.SIAM J. Comput.18, 6 (1989), 1245–1262. doi:10.1137/0218082 Received 2026-02-25; accepted 2026-03-24 Proc. ACM Softw. Eng., Vol. 3, No. FSE, Article FSE201. Publication date: July 2026

    work page doi:10.1137/0218082 1989