arXiv subjects

Tom Yaacov

Publications and source records attributed to Tom Yaacov.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Causal Explanations of Process Monitor Predictions

Process mining is widely used to diagnose processes and identify performance and compliance issues. Specifically, Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) techniques use AI models to predict outcomes of ongoing process instances. While these models can achieve high predictive performance, their black-box nature makes it difficult to understand the underlying reasons behind their output predictions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for generating local (case-level) explanations of process monitor predictions based on the framework of actual causality. We define a causal model tailored to processes that captures temporal dependencies between events in a trace, thus allowing us to reason about causal influence of events on the predicted outcome. Our method uses this model implicitly to compute causes and quantify the importance of different events with respect to the predicted outcome. We present a practical, model-agnostic algorithm that approximates event responsibility given the process structure reflected in the causal model. We evaluate our approach on a range of datasets derived from real-life event logs from a standard PPM benchmark. Each dataset contains up to 130,000 traces, with trace lengths of up to 1,800 events and up to 400 distinct event types. We compare our approach with state-of-the-art local explanation methods. The results demonstrate that our approach produces more stable and concise explanations while maintaining competitive efficiency.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Generating Medical Image Counterfactuals using Causal Explanations

Deep learning models have achieved impressive performance in medical image diagnosis, yet their deployment in clinical settings remains constrained by limited explainability. Counterfactual images provide one means of auditing model behavior by showing how an image would need to change for a classifier to produce a different prediction. Existing approaches typically generate such explanations using auxiliary models, including generative adversarial networks and diffusion models. While often capable of producing visually realistic images, these methods explain one black-box model using another, making it difficult to separate the classifier's decision-making process from the inductive biases of the generator. We propose a novel counterfactual-generation framework that requires no generative model. Instead, counterfactuals are constructed directly from causal evidence extracted from the classifier. The resulting approach is deterministic, requires no additional model training, and enables controllable edits within user-specified regions of interest. Experiments on real-world medical imaging datasets demonstrate that the proposed method successfully changes classifier predictions while remaining closer to the original image than generative baselines, providing a more direct and transparent view of the classifier's decision boundary.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Explaining Failures of Cyber-Physical Systems with Actual Causality

Modern autonomous Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs), such as self-driving cars, face increasingly complex demands, and yet are expected to act reliably. The black-box nature often characterizing such systems, especially those relying on neural components, makes it impossible to fully verify the system behavior prior to deployment. Unfortunately, unexpected failures-when the system does not comply with its specification-are inevitable and may have catastrophic implications. To improve trust in the system and facilitate future mitigation after a failure occurs, it is important to try to derive an explanation for the unexpected system behavior. This paper introduces the novel concept of leveraging the framework of actual causality for CPS failure explanation. Up until now, this framework was only used to derive explanations in the context of simple systems, such as image classifiers. This paper addresses the theoretical gaps and provides the guidance needed to allow for correct explanation derivation in the CPS domain. Beyond the theoretical contribution, the paper presents two novel, practical, system-agnostic explanation derivation algorithms, allowing to prioritize either explanation optimality or derivation efficiency. The approach is demonstrated and evaluated in the context of a neural-network-controlled autonomous car, designed to avoid collisions.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2025

Automata Models for Effective Bug Pattern Description

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.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Exploring and Evaluating Interplays of BPpy with Deep Reinforcement Learning and Formal Methods

We explore and evaluate the interactions between Behavioral Programming (BP) and a range of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Formal Methods (FM) techniques. Our goal is to demonstrate that BP can serve as an abstraction that integrates various techniques, enabling a multifaceted analysis and a rich development process. Specifically, the paper examines how the BPpy framework, a Python-based implementation of BP, is enhanced by and enhances various FM and AI tools. We assess how integrating BP with tools such as Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers, symbolic and probabilistic model checking, and Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) allow us to scale the abilities of BP to model complex systems. Additionally, we illustrate how developers can leverage multiple tools within a single modeling and development task. The paper provides quantitative and qualitative evidence supporting the feasibility of our vision to create a comprehensive toolbox for harnessing AI and FM methods in a unified development framework.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Keeping Behavioral Programs Alive: Specifying and Executing Liveness Requirements

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.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

What Petri Net Obliges Us to Say: Comparing Approaches for Behavior Composition

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 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.

cs.SE↗