Explaining Hyperproperty Violations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hyperproperties relate multiple computation traces to each other. Model checkers for hyperproperties thus return, in case a system model violates the specification, a set of traces as a counterexample. Fixing the erroneous relations between traces in the system that led to the counterexample is a difficult manual effort that highly benefits from additional explanations. In this paper, we present an explanation method for counterexamples to hyperproperties described in the specification logic HyperLTL. We extend Halpern and Pearl's definition of actual causality to sets of traces witnessing the violation of a HyperLTL formula, which allows us to identify the events that caused the violation. We report on the implementation of our method and show that it significantly improves on previous approaches for analyzing counterexamples returned by HyperLTL model checkers.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
3 papers.
- 2025Interactive Explanations for Reinforcement-Learning Agentscited by 2
- 2023Counterfactuals Modulo Temporal Logicscited by 1
- 2023ASQ-IT: Interactive Explanations for Reinforcement-Learning Agentscited by 0
- 2025Interactive Explanations for Reinforcement-Learning Agents7 Apr 2025
- 2023Counterfactuals Modulo Temporal Logics15 Jun 2023
- 2023ASQ-IT: Interactive Explanations for Reinforcement-Learning Agents24 Jan 2023