S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints," Proc. 23rd Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 411-420, May 2001.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... can occur either when complete information is not known or cannot be obtained, or when this information has been abstracted away [Che00,DGD 94] On the other hand, models can be inconsistent because they combine conflicting points of view or contain components developed by different designers [EC01] Partly supported by the State Committee for Scientific Research under the grant No. 7T11C 00620, and by the EU Framework V research project ALFEBIITE. Multi valued modal logics provide a solution to both reasoning under uncertainty and reasoning under inconsistency. Several model checkers ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints, Proc. of ICSE'01, 2001, pp. 411--420.

....aspects that viewpoint v is willing to accept , if stipulated by other points of view. As a running example, we will consider a three valued model checking framework for a branching time temporal logic that subsumes CTL [9] thus enabling a comparison to a semantics [16, 7] and model checker [15] for multiplevalued CTL. Key issues. In transferring single view model checks to a multiple view setting, two key issues are present. First, how does one handle a check of property # in view v, if some observables of # have specified state or behavior outside of v only Second, given a ....

....4, we develop a multiple view semantics of a branching time temporal logic with fixed points that interprets logical connectives compositionally over a multiple valued AC lattice of meaning. This turns out to be our lifted semantics which we compare to existing work on multiple valued modal logic [16, 15]. Finally, Section 5 concludes. 2. Three valued model checking frameworks The models of three valued model checking frameworks have a countable property logic of formulas (# # L) with negation ( conjunction (#) and atomic propositions (y AP) among its operators. Models and atomic ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. M. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A Framework for MultiValued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints. In Proceedings, 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-01), pages 411--420, Toronto, Canada, May 12-19 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.

....models in an order and in a way that best suits their process. The main constraints that we propose to have checked in this manner are those associated with inconsistency across different views of a system. It is well known that inconsistency is useful in modelling and reasoning about requirements [EC01], and so we allow inconsistent views (specifically, the collaboration diagram view and the class diagram view) Inconsistency, while useful in early requirements engineering (particularly when developers and customers are not clear on the requirements for the project) is undesirable during ....

Easterbrook, S.; Chechik, M.: A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In (Harrold and Schaefer): Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering

.... of such inconsistencies, and (iii) compute debugging information that can be used for collaborative negotiations of the removal of inconsistencies, assuming that we can model check properties expressed in a global vocabulary (some aspects may not contain observables that occur in other aspects [7]) in individual aspects. Since MTSs are pairs of labeled transition systems, we may use the techniques of Easterbrook and Chechik [7] twice once on the must components, once on the may components of all aspects to derive the merge of all aspects, a partial model that shares the same ....

....assuming that we can model check properties expressed in a global vocabulary (some aspects may not contain observables that occur in other aspects [7] in individual aspects. Since MTSs are pairs of labeled transition systems, we may use the techniques of Easterbrook and Chechik [7] twice once on the must components, once on the may components of all aspects to derive the merge of all aspects, a partial model that shares the same vocabulary of states and other observables of all aspects of all stakeholders involved. The semantics of the merged statemachine s observables ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. M. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints. In Proceedings, 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-01), Toronto, Canada, May 12-19 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press. To appear.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A framework for multivalued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In Intl. Conference on Software Engineering, pages 411--420, 2001.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for MultiValued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pages 411--420, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for MultiValued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pp 411--420, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE CS Press.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for MultiValued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pages 411-- 420, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE CS Press.

.... for reasoning about disagreements and inconsistencies between different viewpoints (also known as aspects, or features) With quasi boolean logics, it is possible to combine different viewpoints into a single system without first resolving their inconsistencies or assigning priorities to them [EC01] For example, if we are interested in combining two partial viewpoints, each specified using the logic 3, we can use the product logic 3x3 (see Figure 1(b) to represent their composition. In this case, the logic value TF represents information specified to be true in the first viewpoint, and ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pages 411--420, May 2001.

....of the use of model checking in requirements engineering beyond analysing classical state machine models. We now have techniques for reasoning about high level goals [19] use of the modelchecker for test case generation [20,21] formal support for analysing incomplete and inconsistent models [22,23] and the use of the model checker for general model exploration via query checking [24] Case studies and further research would be necessary to determine which of these applications of model checking technology will really scale up to realistic problems, and which will remain confined to toy ....

Easterbrook S, Chechik M. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE'01), Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 411--420

....in [4] is an extension of classical model checking. Instead of classical logic, it operates on elements of a given De Morgan algebra, e.g. the Kleene algebra [13] Multi valued modelchecking has been used in a number of applications, primarily when reasoning about partial [2] and inconsistent [10] systems. In this paper we show how to generate counterexamples for multi valued model checking. We describe the proof system for a multi valued variant of CTL, discuss how to use it to generate counterexamples. The techniques presented in this paper have been implemented as part of our ....

....Temporal properties are expressed in CTL a branching time temporal logic with the same syntax as CTL but where atomic propositions can evaluate to any 2 L. Multi valued modelchecking has been used in a number of applications, primarily when reasoning about partial [2] and inconsistent [10] systems. Given a temporal property , a Kripke structure K, and a De Morgan algebra L, a multi valued model checker (such as our model checker Chek [3] determines [ a function mapping each state s of K to the value of on it. Thus, we are interested in giving the user an ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pages 411--420, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.

....performed. In this section we briefly describe the analysis we can perform if individual concerns are expressed as state machines. We describe the state machine models, the language for specifying properties and the multi valued model checking algorithm. This work is discussed in more detail in [12, 9, 6, 7]. In this work we assume that individual concerns are described as multi valued finite state machines (we call them # views) Conventionally, a state machine model consists of a set of states, a set of transitions between states, and a set of variables whose values vary from state to state. We ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints ". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

....the classical symbolic modelchecking procedure to enable reasoning about arbitrary multi valued logics, as long as conjunction, disjunction and negation of the logical values are specified. This work is part of the bel 1 (the Multi Valued Belief Exploration Logics) project, outlined in [14]. The description of the system together with the description of the desired multi valued logic and the set of correctness criteria expressed in CTL become input to our model checker, called chek, which returns a value of the logic best characterizing the validity of the formula in each ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001. (to appear).

....multi valued logics if we wanted to distinguish further levels of priority, or different types of unknown . We are also interested in modeling disagreement, and have developed a method for reasoning about whether disagreements between stakeholders views affect various system properties. In [9] we outline a general framework for combining inconsistent state machine models into a single model using multi valued logics to capture levels of (dis)agreement. We eventually plan to use the model checker described below as a negotiation tool for constructing and reasoning about such models. 3 ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints".InProc. 23rd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

....v is not. Suppose further that the variable v is present in the other state machine, but the state s is not. Then neither state machine can give the value for variable v in state s. Such situation requires introduction of a new logic value, unknown , represented in Figure 1(d) by value UU [16]. We are interested in building a model checker that takes as its input a particular quasi boolean logic, represented as a lattice of truth values (L; v) a state machine model, represented as a multiple valued Kripke structure, and a temporal logic property expressed in CTL enriched with ....

....necessary operations, and showed that the result is a significantly faster model checking algorithm. The exact speedup depends on the size of the join irreducible set. For example, when we multiply lattices, as we often do when reasoning about multiple points of view (with or without abstraction) [16], the size of the resulting join irreducible set grows as the sum of sizes of join irreducible sets of the original lattices. Furthermore, after casting the multiple valued model checking problem in terms of efficient operations on MBTDDs, we can further improve the running times by reusing ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), pages 411--420, May 2001.

....logic. In summary, we restrict ourselves to quasi boolean logics, and specify them as horizontally symmetric lattices of truth values, together with a definition of negation. Note that classical 2 valued boolean logic is included in this family as a 1 A complete treatment can be found in [5]. view 1 view n view CTL property chek (model checker) Merge Truth values Figure 2: The process model. 2 valued lattice we refer to it as 2val. Over the past year we have been developing bel [6] a framework for merging and reasoning about inconsistent state ....

....a range of different types of interaction between them. A set of merge templates, to guide the choice of multivalued logic and interconnection primitives for different types of analysis. Multi valued logics for reasoning over views. A symbolic multi valued model checker, chek [5, 2, 3], for verifying the temporal properties of views and for generating counter examples. A strategy for using the counter examples to discover disagreements. Our analysis process is shown in Figure 2. We take a set of source views and merge them using a set of interconnection primitives and a ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

....performed. In this section we briefly describe the analysis we can perform if individual concerns are expressed as state machines. We describe the state machine models, the language for specifying properties and the multi valued model checking algorithm. This work is discussed in more detail in [14, 11, 8, 9]. In this work we assume that individual concerns are described as multi valued finite state machines (we call them views) Conventionally, a state machine model consists of a set of states, a set of transitions between states, and a set of variables whose values vary from state to state. We ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints ". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

....is to extend classical symbolic model checking to enable reasoning about arbitrary multi valued logics, as long as conjunction, disjunction and negation of the logical values are speci ed. This work is part of the bel 1 (the Multi Valued Belief Exploration Logics) project, outlined in [12]. The description of the system together with the description of the desired multi valued logic and the set of correctness criteria expressed in CTL become input to our model checker, chek. chek returns a value of the logic characterizing the truth of the formula in each initial state. The ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints . (submitted for publication), August 2000.

....middle and the 11 law of non contradiction [5] The optimization described in this paper restricts us further to logics whose lattices are distributive 3 . Our motivation for developing a multiplevalued model checker was to verify properties of models that contain uncertainty and or disagreement [10]. For this we typically use the logics 3 and 2x2 (shown in Figure 1) and their products, all of which are distributive. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Alasdair Urquhart for suggesting that distributive lattices can be represented by their join irreducible elements. This work was ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

....to distinguish further levels of priority, different types of unknown , or various types of disagreement. We are particularly interested in modeling disagreement, and have developed a method for reasoning about 4 whether disagreements between stakeholders affect various system properties. In [9] we outline our general framework for combining inconsistent state machine models into a single model using multi valued logics to capture levels of (dis)agreement. We eventually plan to use the model checker described below as a negotiation tool for constructing and reasoning about such models. ....

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints". (submitted for publication), August 2000.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, "A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints," Proc. 23rd Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 411-420, May 2001.

No context found.

M. Chechik and W. Easterbrook. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), May 2001.

No context found.

M. Chechik and W. Easterbrook. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In Proc. of ICSE '01, 2001.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A Framework for MultiValued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 411--420, Toronto, Canada, May 2001. ACM Press.

No context found.

S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints, Proc. of ICSE'01, 2001, pp. 411--420.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC