Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

The automated refinement of a requirements domain theory

McCluskey, T.L. and West, Margaret M. (2001) The automated refinement of a requirements domain theory. Journal of Automated Software Engineering, 8 (2). pp. 195-218. ISSN 1573-7535

[img] PDF
Restricted to Registered users only

Download (162kB)


The specification and management of requirements is widely considered to be one of the most important yet most problematic activities in software engineering. In some applications, such as in safety critical areas or knowledge-based systems, the construction of a requirements domain theory is regarded as an important part of this activity. Building and maintaining such a domain theory, however, requires a large investment and a range of powerful validation and maintenance tools. The area of theory refinement is concerned with the use of training data to automatically change an existing theory so that it better fits the data. Theory refinement techniques, however, have not been extensively used in applications because of the problems in scaling up their underlying algorithms.
In our work we have applied theory refinement to assist in the problem of validation and maintenance of a requirements theory concerning separation standards in the North East Atlantic. In this paper we describe an implemented refinement algorithm, which processes a logic program automatically generated from the theory. We overcame the size and expressiveness problems typically encountered when applying theory refinement to a logic program of this kind by designing focused, composite refinement operators within the algorithm. These operators modify the auto-generated logic program by generalising or specialising clauses containing ordinal relations—that is relations which operate on totally ordered data

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: UoA 23 (Computer Science and Informatics) © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Subjects: Q Science > Q Science (General)
Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA76 Computer software
Schools: School of Computing and Engineering
School of Computing and Engineering > Pedagogical Research Group
School of Computing and Engineering > High-Performance Intelligent Computing
School of Computing and Engineering > High-Performance Intelligent Computing > Planning, Autonomy and Representation of Knowledge
School of Computing and Engineering > High-Performance Intelligent Computing > Planning, Autonomy and Representation of Knowledge
Related URLs:
References: Anthony, S. and Frisch, A. 1997. Generating numerical literals during refinement. In N. Lavrac and S. Dzeroski, editors, Inductive Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop, ILP-97, pp. 61–76. Vol. 1297 of LNAI. Apt, K. and Bol, R. 1994. Logic programming and negation: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming, 19(20), 9–71. Argamon-Engelson, S. and Koppel, M. 1998. Tracability of theory patching. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 8, 39–65. Bergadano, F. and Gunetti, D. 1996. Inductive Logic Programming, From Machine Learning to Software Engineering. Cambridge, Massachusetts, US: MIT Press. Bryant, C.H. 1997. The implementation of theory revision in the CPS validation environment. Technical Report impress/2/02/1, School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Huddersfield, UK. Carbonara, L. and Sleeman, D. 1996. Improving the efficiency of knowledge base refinement. In L. Saitta, editor, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’96). Bari, Italy, July 3–6, 1996. pp. 78–86. Clark, K.L. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Bases. Plenum Press, pp. 293–322. Craw, S. 1996. Refinement complements verification and validation. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 44(2), 245–256. Dondossola, G. 1998. Formal methods in the development of safety critical knowledge-based components. In F. van Harmelen, editor, Proceedings of the KR’98 European Workshop on Validation and Verification of Knowledge-Based Systems (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 16). Dubois, E. 1998. ALBERT: A formal language and its supporting tools for requirements engineering. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1382. pp. 322–325. Easterbrook, S. and Callahan, J. 1996. Independent validation of specifications: A coordination headache. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE’96). pp. 232–237. Greiner, R. 1999. The complexity of revising logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 40(3), 273–298. Lloyd, J.W. 1987. Foundations of Logic Programming. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2nd, extended edition. McCluskey, T.L. 1997. An integrated validation environment for the conflict prediction specification. Technical Report impress/2/03/1, School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Huddersfield, UK. McCluskey, T.L., Porteous, J.M., Naik, Y., Taylor, C., and Jones, S. 1995. A requirements capture method and its use in an air traffic control application. Software-Practice and Experience, 25(1), 47–71. McCluskey, T.L., Porteous, J.M., West, M.M., and Bryant, C.H. 1996. The validation of formal specifications of requirements. In Proceedings of the BCS-FACS Northern Formal Methods Workshop. Ilkley, UK. McCluskey, T.L. and West, M.M. 1998. Towards the automated debugging and maintenance of logic-based requirements models. In ASE ’98: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. pp. 105–114. Muggleton, S. and De Raedt, L. 1994. Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming 19(20), 629–679. Opitz, D.W. and Shavlik, J.W. 1997. Connectionist theory refinement: Genetically searching the space of network topologies. Journal of Artficial Intelligence Research, 6, 177–209. Palmer, G.J. and Craw, S. 1996. The role of test cases in automated knowledge refinement. In ES96: The Sixteenth Annual Technical Conference of the British Computer Society Specialist Group on Expert Systems. Cambridge, England, pp. 75–90. Richards, B.L. and Mooney, R.J. 1995. Automated refinement of first order horn-clause domain theories. Machine Learning, 19(2), 95–131. Sebag, M. and Rouveirol, C. 1996. Constraint inductive logic programming. In L. De Raedt, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (published as Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, IOS Press). pp. 277–294. Shapiro 1983. Algorithmic Program Debugging. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sommer, E., Morik, K., Andre, J.M., and Uszynski, M. 1994. What online machine learning can do for knowledge acquisition—A case-study. Knowledge Acquisition, 6(4), 435–460. Srinivasan, A. and Camacho, R. 1999. Numerical reasoning with an ILP system capable of lazy evaluation and customized search. Journal of Logic Programming, 40(3), 185–213. Vermesan, A. and Bench-Capon, T. 1995. Techniques for the verification and validation of knowledge-based systems: A survey based on the symbol/knowledge level distinction. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 5, 233–271. West, M.M., Bryant, C.H., and McCluskey, T.L. 1997. Transforming general program proofs: A meta interpreter which expands negative literals. In Proceedings: LOPSTR ’97. Leuven, Belgium. West, M.M. and McCluskey, T.L. 1998. Ordinal operators in focused theory revision. In Proceedings: JICSLP’98 Post Conference Workshop on Computational Logic and Machine Learning. Manchester, UK, pp. 56–62. Wogulis, J. 1993a. Handling negation in first-order theory revision. In F. Bergadano, L. De Raedt, S. Matwin, and S. Muggleton, editor, Proceedings of the IJCAI ’93 Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming. pp. 36–46. Wogulis, J.L. 1993b. An approach to repairing and evaluating first-order theories containing multiple concepts and negation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, US. Wrobel, S. 1996. First order theory revision. In L. De Raedt, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (published as Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, IOS Press). pp. 14–33.
Depositing User: Sara Taylor
Date Deposited: 25 Jun 2007
Last Modified: 28 Aug 2021 23:34


Downloads per month over past year

Repository Staff Only: item control page

View Item View Item

University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©