Skip to content
Review Open access

A Closer Look at the Use of Reinforcement Learning for Speeding Up Runtime Verification of Software Tests (Experience Paper)

Oct 2026 · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · Vol 3, pp. 4334 - 4355 · 0 citations · 87 references

TL;DR

Valg aims to probabilistically monitor most unique traces—sequences of spec-related events like method calls—and monitor fewer redundant ones and has plenty of room to improve, but only two of 11 RL algorithms that are feasible for RV during continuous integration are feasible.

Abstract

Runtime verification (RV) found many bugs by monitoring passing tests against formal specifications (specs), but it is slow. A recent work, Valg, used reinforcement learning (RL) to speed up RV by up to 551.5x or 27 hours. Valg aims to probabilistically monitor most unique traces—sequences of spec-related events like method calls—and monitor fewer redundant ones. But, there is no in-depth study of Valg’s current limits and how to address them. We study Valg on 93 Java open-source projects to answer five unaddressed questions. (i) How much slower is Valg than optimal baselines? Up to 323.8x, or 3.2 hours vs. running tests without RV, and up to 9.6x, or 25.3 minutes vs. a theoretically optimal baseline that monitors only unique traces. (ii) Where is Valg’s time spent? 30.5% on monitoring and 18.4% on signaling events to monitors, on average. (iii) What characterizes code where Valg monitors too many redundant traces or misses unique ones? In 100 cases, 67.8% of redundant traces are due to limitations of Valg’s RL convergence heuristic, and 41.3% of missed unique traces occur when a Valg assumption does not hold. (iv) How much can test non-determinism and RL stochasticity cause monitored unique traces to vary? By 42.5 percentage points (pp) and 12.3pp on average, respectively, but they vary by up to 98pp. (v) How do other off-the-shelf RL algorithms compare with Valg’s? Only two of 11 RL algorithms that we survey are feasible for RV during continuous integration. Both are slower and miss more unique traces than Valg, so custom RL algorithms for RV may be needed. So, despite Valg’s promising results, it has plenty of room to improve. We highlight several exciting future directions on using RL to speed up RV.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review

A Closer Look at the Use of Reinforcement Learning for Speeding Up Runtime Verification of Software Tests (Experience Paper)

Valg aims to probabilistically monitor most unique traces—sequences of spec-related events like method calls—and monitor fewer redundant ones and has plenty of room to improve, but only two of 11 RL algorithms that are feasible for RV during continuous integration are feasible.

Unknown authors · 0 citations

Reinforcement Learning for Code Optimization

This work makes execution time learnable through three stages: how code is tested, by building DMC-Optim with large optimization tests and a calibrated sandbox; how speed is turned into reward, by composing correctness and speed in the RL environment and using an offline simulator to predict the most promising configur...

Pierre Chambon, Kun-Hao Zheng, Juliette Decugis et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

CovR: Coverage-Aware Hardware Verification via Reasoning-Guided Reinforcement Learning

CovR is presented, an agentic framework for automated testbench generation that combines self-reflection loops with simulation-based feedback to maximize coverage and a reinforcement learning (RL) framework tailored for coverage-driven testbench generation, leveraging tool-derived rewards from simulation and coverage f...

Manar Abdelatty, Maryam Nouh, Sherief Reda · 0 citations
Jul 2026

RLPF: Reinforcement Learning from Performance Feedback for Code Generation

This work proposes RLPF, reinforcement learning from performance feedback, which turns execution outcomes into a staged reward, and suggests that code agents can be trained not only to pass tests, but also to optimize the programs they write.

Huihao Jing, Hao-Zhe Cui, Wenbin Hu et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?

When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect. We measure how often that treatment is warranted. BSG-VA (buggy-state/candidate-state/gold-fix validation analysis) captures each validation command at its exact working-tree state, extracts a test-only patch,...

Xiaonan Xu, Wenjing Wu · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Goanna: a novel approach for automated type error debugging

Goanna is introduced, a novel type checker for Haskell that focuses on improving error diagnostics, and shows performance constraints when diagnosing large programs containing complex errors, but remains responsive enough to provide real-time debugging assistance for small to medium-sized programs.

Shuai Fu, Tim Dwyer, Peter James Stuckey et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.