Should We Learn Probabilistic Models for Model Checking? A New Approach and An Empirical Study

Many automated system analysis techniques (e.g., model checking, model-based testing) rely on first obtaining a model of the system under analysis. System modeling is often done manually, which is often considered as a hindrance to adopt model-based system analysis and development techniques. To overcome this problem, researchers have proposed to automatically "learn" models based on sample system executions and shown that the learned models can be useful sometimes. There are however many questions to be answered. For instance, how much shall we generalize from the observed samples and how fast would learning converge? Or, would the analysis result based on the learned model be more accurate than the estimation we could have obtained by sampling many system executions within the same amount of time? In this work, we investigate existing algorithms for learning probabilistic models for model checking, propose an evolution-based approach for better controlling the degree of generalization and conduct an empirical study in order to answer the questions. One of our findings is that the effectiveness of learning may sometimes be limited.Comment: 15 pages, plus 2 reference pages, accepted by FASE 2017 in ETAP

Denoising Autoencoders for fast Combinatorial Black Box Optimization

Estimation of Distribution Algorithms (EDAs) require flexible probability models that can be efficiently learned and sampled. Autoencoders (AE) are generative stochastic networks with these desired properties. We integrate a special type of AE, the Denoising Autoencoder (DAE), into an EDA and evaluate the performance of DAE-EDA on several combinatorial optimization problems with a single objective. We asses the number of fitness evaluations as well as the required CPU times. We compare the results to the performance to the Bayesian Optimization Algorithm (BOA) and RBM-EDA, another EDA which is based on a generative neural network which has proven competitive with BOA. For the considered problem instances, DAE-EDA is considerably faster than BOA and RBM-EDA, sometimes by orders of magnitude. The number of fitness evaluations is higher than for BOA, but competitive with RBM-EDA. These results show that DAEs can be useful tools for problems with low but non-negligible fitness evaluation costs.Comment: corrected typos and small inconsistencie