counterexample-explainer

Counterexample Explainer

Overview

Analyze counterexamples that violate specifications and produce clear, structured explanations showing step-by-step how and why the violation occurs, with root cause analysis and impact assessment.

Workflow

1. Understand the Specification

Identify what property is being checked.

Questions to ask:

• What is the specification or requirement?
• Is it formal (invariant, temporal logic) or informal (requirement doc)?
• What should happen vs what actually happened?
• Is this from a test failure, model checker, or runtime error?

See [specification-types.md](references/specification-types.md) for comprehensive specification catalog.

Common specification types:

Formal specifications:

• Invariants: balance >= 0
• Temporal logic: G(request → F grant)
• Pre/postconditions: @requires(x > 0), @ensures(result >= 0)
• State machines: Valid state transitions
• Concurrency: Atomicity, deadlock freedom

Informal requirements:

• User stories with acceptance criteria
• Functional requirements
• API contracts
• Expected behavior descriptions

Test specifications:

• Assertions: assert result == expected
• Property-based tests
• Integration test expectations

2. Collect Counterexample Information

Gather all relevant data about the violation.

From test failures:

# Run test to get failure details
pytest test_file.py::test_name -v

# Get stack trace
pytest test_file.py::test_name -v --tb=long

# Get variable values at failure
pytest test_file.py::test_name -v -l

Information to extract:

• Input values that triggered failure
• Expected output/behavior
• Actual output/behavior
• Intermediate state changes
• Stack trace or execution path
• Error messages

From runtime violations:

# Assertion failure
AssertionError: balance must be non-negative
  File "account.py", line 45
  assert self.balance >= 0

# Extract:
# - Variable: self.balance
# - Expected: >= 0
# - Actual: (check value)

From model checkers:

Counterexample trace:
State 0: request=false, grant=false
State 1: request=true, grant=false
State 2: request=true, grant=false
...
State 50: request=true, grant=false (VIOLATION)

Property violated: G(request → F grant)

3. Identify Violation Point

Pinpoint exactly where and when specification is broken.

For invariants:

• Find the operation that breaks the invariant
• Identify the state transition that causes violation
• Note variable values before and after

For temporal properties:

• Identify the state where property fails
• Trace back to find root cause
• Show path through states

For assertions:

• Locate the assertion that fails
• Check values of variables in assertion
• Find operation that produced wrong value

Example analysis:

# Specification
assert balance >= 0  # Invariant

# Counterexample
initial_balance = 100
withdraw(150)
# balance is now -50

# Violation point: withdraw operation
# Before: balance = 100 (satisfies invariant)
# After: balance = -50 (violates invariant)

4. Generate Step-by-Step Trace

Show execution path leading to violation.

See [explanation-patterns.md](references/explanation-patterns.md) for detailed patterns.

Trace structure:

## Counterexample Trace

**Specification:** [What property should hold]

### Initial State
- [variable1]: [value]
- [variable2]: [value]
- Status: ✅ Satisfies specification

### Step 1: [Operation/Event]
**Action:** [What happened]

**State Changes:**
- [variable]: [old_value] → [new_value]

**Status:** ✅ Still satisfies specification

**Why this matters:** [Explanation of significance]

### Step 2: [Operation/Event]
**Action:** [What happened]

**State Changes:**
- [variable]: [old_value] → [new_value]

**Status:** ❌ VIOLATES specification

**Violation Details:**
- Expected: [what should be true]
- Actual: [what is actually true]
- Violated property: [specific clause/condition]

**Why it violates:** [Clear explanation]

### Final State
- [variable1]: [value]
- [variable2]: [value]
- Status: ❌ Specification violated

Example:

## Balance Invariant Violation

**Specification:** Account balance must remain non-negative (`balance >= 0`)

### Initial State
- account.balance: 100
- Status: ✅ Satisfies invariant (100 >= 0)

### Step 1: User initiates withdrawal
**Action:** `withdraw(150)` called

**Validation Check:**
- Amount to withdraw: 150
- Current balance: 100
- Sufficient funds? NO (150 > 100)

**Expected behavior:** Reject withdrawal, raise InsufficientFundsError

**Actual behavior:** Withdrawal proceeds (bug: no validation)

### Step 2: System processes withdrawal
**Action:** Balance updated

**State Changes:**
- account.balance: 100 → -50

**Status:** ❌ VIOLATES INVARIANT

**Violation Details:**
- Expected: balance >= 0
- Actual: balance = -50
- Violated property: balance >= 0 (non-negativity)

**Why it violates:**
-50 is NOT >= 0. The balance has gone negative, which violates the core
invariant that account balances must never be negative.

### Final State
- account.balance: -50
- Status: ❌ Overdraft occurred

### Root Cause
Missing validation in `withdraw` method:

def withdraw(self, amount): # BUG: No check if amount > balance self.balance -= amount # This can go negative!

Should be:

def withdraw(self, amount): if amount > self.balance: raise InsufficientFundsError(f"Cannot withdraw {amount}, balance is {self.balance}") self.balance -= amount

5. Compare Expected vs Actual

Show side-by-side what should happen vs what happened.

## Expected vs Actual Behavior

| Aspect | Expected (Specification) | Actual (Counterexample) | Match? |
|--------|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| [Property 1] | [Expected value] | [Actual value] | ✅/❌ |
| [Property 2] | [Expected value] | [Actual value] | ✅/❌ |
| [Property 3] | [Expected value] | [Actual value] | ✅/❌ |

**Key Differences:**
- [Property X]: Expected [value] but got [value]

**Why this matters:**
[Explanation of impact]

6. Identify Root Cause

Find the underlying bug or design flaw.

Common root causes:

Missing validation:

# Root cause: No input validation
def divide(a, b):
    return a / b  # Crashes when b=0

# Fix: Add validation
def divide(a, b):
    if b == 0:
        raise ValueError("Cannot divide by zero")
    return a / b

Wrong algorithm:

# Root cause: Using > instead of <
def sort_ascending(arr):
    for i in range(len(arr)):
        for j in range(i+1, len(arr)):
            if arr[i] > arr[j]:  # BUG: should be <
                arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]

Race conditions:

# Root cause: Non-atomic update
def increment_counter():
    count = get_count()  # Read
    count += 1           # Modify
    set_count(count)     # Write
    # Another thread can interleave here

Off-by-one errors:

# Root cause: Loop doesn't process last element
for i in range(len(arr) - 1):  # BUG: should be len(arr)
    process(arr[i])
# Last element never processed

7. Assess Impact

Explain consequences of the violation.

## Impact Analysis

**What Went Wrong:**
[Brief description of violation]

**Immediate Consequences:**
- [Direct effect 1]
- [Direct effect 2]

**Downstream Effects:**
1. [Cascading effect 1]
2. [Cascading effect 2]

**Severity:** [Critical/High/Medium/Low]

**Real-World Impact:**
[What this means for users/system]

**Example Scenario:**
[Concrete example of harm]

8. Present Complete Explanation

Combine all analysis into clear explanation.

Explanation structure:

# Counterexample Explanation: [Title]

## Summary
[One-sentence description of violation]

## Specification
**What should happen:**
[Specification statement]

**In plain English:**
[Non-technical explanation]

## Counterexample
**What actually happened:**
[Description of v