A Comparison of Transformer and AR-SI Oracle For Control-CPS Software Fault Localization

Control-CPSs are usually safety or mission critical, hence they demand thorough debugging. As nowadays control-CPSs reaching millions of lines of source code, traditional human-flesh debugging is no longer sufficient. We need automated software fault localization (SFL) to assist the debugging. In automated SFL, automatically generated test cases are fed to the control-CPS (or the simulator of the control-CPS), to generate thousands of cyber-subsystem code traces and physical-subsystem trajectories. Next, another automated program, aka oracle, is needed to label the correctness of these physical-subsystem trajectories (and hence cyber-subsystem code traces), even without knowing if there is a bug in the cyber-subsystem. Control-CPS oracle design is a known hard problem. To our best knowledge, AR-SI oracle (denoted as AO in the following) is the most widely adopted control-CPS oracle so far. On the other hand, recently, transformer emerges as a major game changer in the domain of time series prediction. As AO is also time series prediction based, people naturally wonder if transformers can also be used as control-CPS oracles; and if so, can it outperform AO. In this paper, we answer this question by comparing AO with an intuitive design of transformer control-CPS oracle (simplified as TO in the following). Our comparison results show that in terms of SFL accuracy and latency, the TO does not significantly outperform the AO; in terms of false positive rate, the AO performs significantly better; and in terms of false negative rate, the TO performs significantly better.