Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting incremental behaviour model elaboration

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Computer Science - Research and Development

Abstract

Behaviour model construction remains a difficult and labour intensive task which hinders the adoption of model-based methods by practitioners. We believe one reason for this is the mismatch between traditional approaches and current software development process best practices which include iterative development, adoption of use-case and scenario-based techniques and viewpoint- or stakeholder-based analysis; practices which require modelling and analysis in the presence of partial information about system behaviour.

Our objective is to address the limitations of behaviour modelling and analysis by shifting the focus from traditional behaviour models and verification techniques that require full behaviour information to partial behaviour models and analysis techniques, that drive model elaboration rather than asserting adequacy. We aim to develop sound theory, techniques and tools that facilitate the construction of partial behaviour models through model synthesis, enable partial behaviour model analysis and provide feedback that prompts incremental elaboration of partial models.

In this paper we present how the different research threads that we have and currently are developing help pursue this vision as part of the “Partial Behaviour Modelling—Foundations for Iterative Model Based Software Engineering” Starting Grant funded by the ERC. We cover partial behaviour modelling theory and construction, controller synthesis, automated diagnosis and refinement, and behaviour validation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander I, Maiden N (2004) Scenarios, stories, use cases: through the systems development life-cycle. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alrajeh D, Russo A, Uchitel S (2008) Deriving non-zeno behavior models from goal models using ilp. In: Fiadeiro JL, Inverardi P (eds) FASE. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4961. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alrajeh D, Kramer J, Russo A, Uchitel S (2009) Learning operational requirements from goal models. In: Proc of 31st intl conf on softw eng, pp 265–275

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alrajeh D, Ray O, Russo A, Uchitel S (2009) Using abduction and induction for operational requirements elaboration. J Appl Log 7(3):275–288

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Alrajeh D, Kramer J, Russo A, Uchitel S (2010) Deriving non-zeno behaviour models from goal models using ilp. Form Asp Comput 22(3–4):217–241

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Alrajeh D, Kramer J, Russo A, Uchitel S (2012) Learning from vacuously satisfiable scenario-based specifications. In: de Lara J, Zisman A (eds) FASE. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7212. Springer, Berlin, pp 377–393

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alrajeh D, Kramer J, van Lamsweerde A, Russo A, Uchitel S (2012) Generating obstacle conditions for requirements completeness. In: Proc of 34th intl conf on softw eng

    Google Scholar 

  8. Alur R, La Torre S (2004) Deterministic generators and games for LTL fragments. ACM Trans Comput Log 5(1):1–25

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Asarin E, Maler O, Pnueli A, Sifakis J (1998) Controller synthesis for timed automata. In: Proceedings of the IFAC symposium on system structure and control

    Google Scholar 

  10. Autili M, Inverardi P, Tivoli M, Garlan D (2004) Synthesis of “correct” adaptors for protocol enhancement in component-based systems. In: SAVCBS 2004 specification and verification of component-based systems, p 79

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beatty D, Bryant R (1994) Formally verifying a microprocessor using a simulation methodology. In: Proceedings of design automation conference’94, pp 596–602

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ben-David S, Chechik M, Gurfinkel A, Uchitel S (2011) CSSL: a logic for specifying conditional scenarios. In: Gyimóthy T, Zeller A (eds) SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, New York, pp 37–47. (Acceptance rate: 16 %. Scopus)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bertoli P, Pistore M (2004) Planning with extended goals and partial observability. In: Proceedings of ICAPS, vol 4

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bertoli P, Cimatti A, Pistore M, Roveri M, Traverso P (2001) MBP: a model based planner. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI’01 workshop on planning under uncertainty and incomplete information

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bertolino A, Inverardi P, Pelliccione P, Tivoli M (2009) Automatic synthesis of behavior protocols for composable web-services. In: Proceedings of the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering on European software engineering conference and foundations of software engineering symposium. ACM, New York, pp 141–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Chatterjee K, Henzinger TA, Jobstmann B (2008) Environment assumptions for synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on concurrency theory, CONCUR ’08. Springer, Berlin, pp 147–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Chechik M, Devereux B, Easterbrook S, Gurfinkel A (2003) Multi-valued symbolic model-checking. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 12(4):371–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chechik M, Gheorghiu M, Gurfinkel A (2007) Finding environment guarantees. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on fundamental approaches to software engineering, FASE’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 352–367

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Clarke E, Grumberg O, Peled D (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dams D, Gerth R, Grumberg O (1997) Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 2(19):253–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20(1):3–50

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A (1996) Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Proc of 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on foundations of softw eng, pp 179–190

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. de Alfaro L, Henzinger TA (2001) Interface automata. Softw Eng Notes 26(5):109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. de Caso G, Braberman VA, Garbervetsky D, Uchitel S (2011) Program abstractions for behaviour validation. In: Taylor RN, Gall H, Medvidovic N (eds) ICSE. ACM, New York, pp 381–390

    Google Scholar 

  25. de Caso G, Braberman VA, Garbervetsky D, Uchitel S (2012) Automated abstractions for contract validation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(1):141–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. DeLine R, Fahndrich M (2004) Typestates for objects. In: Ecoop 2004-object-oriented programming: 18th European conference: proceedings, Oslo, Norway, June, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D’Ippolito N, Fischbein D, Chechik M, Uchitel S (2008) Mtsa: the modal transition system analyser. In: ASE. IEEE Press, New York, pp 475–476

    Google Scholar 

  28. D’Ippolito N, Braberman VA, Piterman N, Uchitel S (2011) Synthesis of live behaviour models for fallible domains. In: Taylor RN, Gall H, Medvidovic N (eds) ICSE. ACM, New York, pp 211–220

    Google Scholar 

  29. D’Ippolito N, Braberman V, Piterman N, Uchitel S (2013) Synthesising non-anomalous event-based controllers for liveness goals. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 22(1)

  30. D’Ippolito N, Braberman V, Piterman N, Uchitel S (2012) The modal transition system control problem. Lect Notes Comput Sci. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_15

    Google Scholar 

  31. Feather MS, Cornford SL (2003) Quantitative risk-based requirements reasoning. Requir Eng 8:248–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Finkelstein A (1996) The London ambulance system case study. In: Proc of 8th intl work on software specification and design, pp 5–19

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fischbein D (2012) Foundations for behavioural model elaboration using modal transition systems. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London, UK

  34. Fischbein D, Uchitel S (2008) On correct and complete strong merging of partial behaviour models. In: Harrold MJ, Murphy GC (eds) SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, New York, pp 297–307

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fischbein D, Braberman VA, Uchitel S (2009) A sound observational semantics for modal transition systems. In: Leucker M, Morgan C (eds) ICTAC. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5684. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–230

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fischbein D, D’Ippolito N, Brunet G, Chechik M, Uchitel S (2012) Weak alphabet merging of partial behavior models. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 21(2):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fitting M (1991) Many-valued modal logics. Fundam Inform 15(3–4):335–350

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1988) The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski RA, Bowen K (eds) Proc of 5th int conference on logic programming, pp 1070–1080

    Google Scholar 

  39. Giannakopoulou D, Magee J (2003) Fluent model checking for event-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE’03). ACM, New York, pp 257–266

    Google Scholar 

  40. Grieskamp W, Kicillof N, Stobie K, Braberman V (2011) Model-based quality assurance of protocol documentation: tools and methodology. Soft Test Verif Reliab. doi:10.1002/stvr.427

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gurfinkel A, Chechik M (2004) How vacuous is vacuous? In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’04), Barcelona, Spain. LNCS, vol 2988. Springer, Berlin, pp 451–466

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Harel D (2003) Come, let’s play—scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Heaven W, Sykes D, Magee J, Kramer J (2009) A case study in goal-driven architectural adaptation. In: Software engineering for self-adaptive systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. IEEE (1990) IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology

    Google Scholar 

  46. ITU (2000) Message sequence charts. Technical report recommendation Z.120, International Telecommunications Union, Telecommunication Standardisation Sector

  47. Jackson M (1995) Software requirements & specifications—a lexicon of practice, principles and prejudices. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jackson M (1995) The world and the machine. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on software engineering, ICSE’95. ACM, New York, pp 283–292

    Google Scholar 

  49. Keller R (1976) Formal verification of parallel programs. Commun ACM 19(7):371–384

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Kowalski RA, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener Comput 4(1):67–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kramer J, Magee J, Sloman M (1983) Conic: an integrated approach to distributed computer control systems. In: IEE proc, part E, vol 130

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kripke SA (1963) Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philos Fenn 16:83–94

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Larsen KG, Thomsen B (1988) A modal process logic. In: Proceedings of 3rd annual symposium on logic in computer science (LICS’88). IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 203–210

    Google Scholar 

  54. Larsen K, Xinxin L (1990) Equation solving using modal transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science (LICS’90). IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 108–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Larsen KG, Steffen B, Weise C (1995) A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In: Tools and algorithms for construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’95). LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–28

    Google Scholar 

  56. Letier E, Van Lamsweerde A (2002) Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. In: Proc of 10th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on foundations of software engineering, pp 119–128

    Google Scholar 

  57. Letier E, Kramer J, Magee J, Uchitel S (2008) Deriving event-based transition systems from goal-oriented requirements models. Autom Softw Eng 15(2):175–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Parnas DL, Madey J (1995) Functional documents for computer systems. Sci Comput Program 25:41–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Meyer B (1992) Applying ‘design by contract’. Computer 25:40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Piterman N, Pnueli A, Sa’ar Y (2006) Synthesis of reactive (1) designs. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3855:364–380

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Pnueli A, Rosner R (1989) On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp 179–190

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Pressman RS (2010) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rosenblum DS (1995) A practical approach to programming with assertions. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(1):19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sassolas M, Chechik M, Uchitel S (2011) Exploring inconsistencies between modal transition systems. Softw Syst Model 10(1):117–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sibay G, Uchitel S, Braberman VA (2008) Existential live sequence charts revisited. In: Schäfer W, Dwyer MB, Gruhn V (eds) ICSE. ACM, New York, pp 41–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Sykes D, Heaven W, Magee J, Kramer J (2007) Plan-directed architectural change for autonomous systems. In: Poetzsch-Heffter A (ed) SAVCBS. ACM, New York, pp 15–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Uchitel S, Chechik M (2004) Merging partial behavioural models. In: Proceedings of 12th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, pp 43–52

    Google Scholar 

  70. Uchitel S, Kramer J, Magee J (2003) Behaviour model elaboration using partial labelled transition systems. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, New York, pp 19–27

    Google Scholar 

  71. Uchitel S, Brunet G, Chechik M (2007) Behaviour model synthesis from properties and scenarios. In: ICSE. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 34–43

    Google Scholar 

  72. Uchitel S, Brunet G, Chechik M (2009) Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(3):384–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. van Gabbeek RJ, Weijland WP (1996) Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J ACM 43(3):555–600

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  74. van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Comput Soc, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  75. van Lamsweerde A (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  76. van Lamsweerde A, Letier E (2000) Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26:978–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Van HT, van Lamsweerde A, Massonet P, Ponsard C (2004) Goal-oriented requirements animation. In: Requirements engineering conference, 2004, pp 218–228

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zoppi E, Braberman V, de Caso G, Garbervetsky D, Uchitel S (2011) Contractor.net: inferring typestate properties to enrich code contracts. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on developing tools as Plug-ins, TOPI ’11. ACM, New York, pp 44–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College London, London, UK

    Sebastian Uchitel, Dalal Alrajeh, Nicolas D’Ippolito, Dario Fischbein, Jeff Kramer, Alessandra Russo & German Sibay

  2. FCEN, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Sebastian Uchitel, Victor Braberman, Guido De Caso & Diego Garbervetsky

  3. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Shoham Ben-David & Marsha Chechik

Authors
  1. Sebastian Uchitel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dalal Alrajeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shoham Ben-David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Victor Braberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marsha Chechik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guido De Caso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicolas D’Ippolito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dario Fischbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Diego Garbervetsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jeff Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alessandra Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. German Sibay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Uchitel.

Additional information

We thank the ERC for financially supporting this work through the grant StG PBM-FIMBSE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uchitel, S., Alrajeh, D., Ben-David, S. et al. Supporting incremental behaviour model elaboration. Comput Sci Res Dev 28, 279–293 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-012-0233-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-012-0233-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation