Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling timed reactive systems from natural-language requirements

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

At the very beginning of system development, typically only natural-language requirements are documented. As an informal source of information, however, natural-language specifications may be ambiguous and incomplete; this can be hard to detect by means of manual inspection. In this work, we present a formal model, named data-flow reactive system (DFRS), which can be automatically obtained from natural-language requirements that describe functional, reactive and temporal properties. A DFRS can also be used to assess whether the requirements are consistent and complete. We define two variations of DFRS: a symbolic and an expanded version. A symbolic DFRS (s-DFRS) is a concise representation that inherently avoids an explicit representation of (possibly infinite) sets of states and, thus, the state space-explosion problem. We use s-DFRS as part of a technique for test-case generation from natural-language requirements. In our approach, an expanded DFRS (e-DFRS) is built dynamically from a symbolic one, possibly limited to some bound; in this way, bounded analysis (e.g., reachability, determinism, completeness) can be performed. We adopt the s-DFRS as an intermediary representation from which models, for instance, SCR and CSP, are obtained for the purpose of test generation. An e-DFRS can also be viewed as the semantics of the s-DFRS from which it is generated. In order to connect such a semantic representation to established ones in the literature, we show that an e-DFRS can be encoded as a TIOTS: an alternative timed model based on the widely used IOLTS and ioco. To validate our overall approach, we consider two toy examples and two examples from the aerospace and automotive industry. Test cases are independently created and we verify that they are all compatible with the corresponding e-DFRS models generated from symbolic ones. This verification is performed mechanically with the aid of the NAT2TEST tool, which supports the manipulation of such models.

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. Aichernig BK, Brandl H, Jöbstl E, Krenn W, Schlick R, Tiran S: Killing strategies for model-based mutation testing. Softw Test Verif Reliab 25(8), 716–748 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abrial J.-R.: The B-book: assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Aceituna D, Do H, Srinivasan S (2014) A systematic approach to transforming system requirements into model checking specifications. In: Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE Companion 2014. ACM, New York, pp 165–174

  4. Ambriola V, Gervasi V: On the systematic analysis of natural language requirements with CIRCE. Autom Softw Eng 13(1), 107–167 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Allen J (1995) Natural language understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City

  6. Blackburn M, Busser R, Fontaine J (1997) Automatic Generation of Test Vectors for SCR-style Specifications. In: Annual conference on computer assurance

  7. Backes J, Cofer D, Miller S, Whalen MW (2015) Requirements analysis of a quad-redundant flight control system. In: Havelund K, Holzmann G, Joshi R (eds) NASA formal methods, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9058. Springer International Publishing, Pasadena, pp 82–96

  8. Bucchiarone A, Gnesi S, Fantechi A, Trentanni G (2010) An experience in using a tool for evaluating a large set of natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM symposium on applied computing, SAC ’10. ACM, New York, pp 281–286

  9. Boddu R, Guo L, Mukhopadhyay S, Cukic B (2004) RETNA: from requirements to testing in a natural way. In: IEEE International requirements engineering conference, pp 262–271

  10. Carvalho G (2016) NAT2TEST: generating test cases from natural language requirements based on CSP. PhD thesis, Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Brazil

  11. Carvalho G, Barros F, Carvalho A, Cavalcanti A, Mota A, Sampaio A (2015) NAT2TEST Tool: from Natural Language Requirements to Test Cases based on CSP. In: International conference on software engineering and formal methods. Springer International Publishing, Cham

  12. Carvalho G, Barros F, Lapschies F, Schulze U, Peleska J (2014) Model-Based Testing from Controlled Natural Language Requirements. In: Artho C, Ölveczky PC (eds) Formal techniques for safety-critical systems, Communications in computer and information science, vol 419. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 19–35

  13. Cimatti A, Clarke EM, Giunchiglia F, Roveri M (1999) NuSMV: a new symbolic model verifier. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computer aided verification, CAV ’99. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 495–499

  14. Carvalho G, Carvalho A, Rocha E, Cavalcanti A, Sampaio A (2014) A formal model for natural-language timed requirements of reactive systems. In: Merz S, Pang J (eds) Formal methods and software engineering, international conference on formal engineering methods ICFEM, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8829. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 43–58

  15. Carvalho G, Cavalcanti A, Sampaio A (2015) DFRS: definition and proofs. Technical report, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

  16. Carvalho G, Falcão D, Barros F, Sampaio A, Mota A, Motta L, Blackburn M (2013) Test case generation from natural language requirements based on SCR specifications. In: Symposium on applied computing, vol 2, pp 1217–1222

  17. Carvalho G, Falcão D, Barros F, Sampaio A, Mota A, Motta L, Blackburn M (2014) NAT2TEST SCR : test case generation from natural language requirements based on SCR specifications. Sci Comput Program 95(Part 3(0)):275–297

  18. Carvalho G, Sampaio A, Mota A (2013) A CSP timed input-output relation and a strategy for mechanised conformance verification. In: Formal methods and software engineering, LNCS, vol 8144. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 148–164

  19. Esser M, Struss P (2007) Obtaining models for test generation from natural-language like functional specifications. In: International workshop on principles of diagnosis, pp 75–82

  20. FAA (2009) Requirements engineering management findings report. Technical report, U.S. Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration

  21. Fillmore CJ (1968) The case for case. In: Bach, Harms (eds) Universals in linguistic theory. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, pp 1–88

  22. Ferrari A, Lipari G, Gnesi S, Spagnolo GO (2014) Pragmatic ambiguity detection in natural language requirements. In: Artificial intelligence for requirements engineering (AIRE), 2014 IEEE 1st International Workshop on, pp 1–8

  23. Ilic D (2007) Deriving formal specifications from informal requirements. In: Computer software and applications conference, 2007. COMPSAC 2007. 31st Annual International, vol 1, pp 145–152

  24. ISO (2002) Z formal specification notation (ISO/IEC 13568). Technical report, International Organization for Standardization

  25. Lee WJ, Cha SD, Kwon YR: Integration and analysis of use cases using modular Petri nets in requirements engineering. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 24(12), 1115–1130 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leonard E, Heitmeyer C: Program synthesis from formal requirements specifications using APTS. High Order Symbol Comput 16, 63–92 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Leveson NG, PerErik Heimdahl M, Hildreth H, Reese JD: Requirements Specification For Process-Control Systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(9), 684–707 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Larsen K, Mikucionis M, Nielsen B (2004) Online testing of real-time systems using uppaal: status and future work. In: Perspectives of model-based testing—Dagstuhl Seminar, vol 04371

  29. Liu S, Sun J, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Wadhwa B, Dong JS, Wang X (2014) Automatic early defects detection in use case documents. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE international conference on automated software engineering, ASE ’14. ACM, New York, pp 785–790

  30. Miller SP, Tribble AC, Whalen MW, Heimdahl MPE (2006) Proving the shalls. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 8(4–5):303–319

  31. Nogueira S, Sampaio A, Mota A: Test generation from state based use case models. Formal Aspects Comput 26(3), 441–490 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Owre S, Rushby JM, Shankar N (1992) PVS: A prototype verification system. In: Kapur D (ed) 11th International Conference On Automated Deduction (CADE), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 607. Springer-Verlag, Saratoga, pp 748–752

  33. Peleska J et al (2011) A real-world benchmark model for testing concurrent real-time systems in the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of the ICTSS, ICTSS’11. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 146–161

  34. Peleska J, Vorobev E, Lapschies F, Zahlten C (2011) Automated model-based testing with RT-Tester. Technical report, Universität Bremen

  35. Roscoe AW (2010) Understanding concurrent systems. Springer, London

  36. Schwitter R (2002) English as a formal specification language. In: Proceedings of the 13th international workshop on database and expert systems applications

  37. Schnelte M (2009) Generating test cases for timed systems from controlled natural language specifications. In: International conference on system integration and reliability improvements, pp 348–353

  38. Siegl S, Hielscher K-S, German R (2010) Model based requirements analysis and testing of automotive systems with timed usage models. In: Requirements engineering conference (RE), 2010 18th IEEE International, pp 345–350

  39. Junior VS, Vijaykumar NL: Generating model-based test cases from natural language requirements for space application software. Softw Qual J 20, 77–143 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 39. Sun J, Liu Y, Dong JS, Pang J Pat: (2009) Towards flexible verification under fairness, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5643. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 709–714

  41. 40. Tretmans J (1999) Testing concurrent systems: a formal approach. In: Proceedings of CONCUR. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 46–65

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 50740-560, Recife, Brazil

    Gustavo Carvalho & Augusto Sampaio

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO10 5GH, UK

    Ana Cavalcanti

Authors
  1. Gustavo Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Cavalcanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Augusto Sampaio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustavo Carvalho.

Additional information

Stephan Merz, Jun Pang, Jin Song Dong and Cliff Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvalho, G., Cavalcanti, A. & Sampaio, A. Modelling timed reactive systems from natural-language requirements. Form Asp Comp 28, 725–765 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-016-0387-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-016-0387-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation