Exploiting Electronic Design Automation for Checking Legal Regulations: A Vision

  • Oliver Keszocze
  • Robert Wille
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 361)


Legal regulations are large and complex documents that require experts such as lawyers to be understood. Working with these documents is a manual and time- consuming task. Common use cases are to decide whether a submission is conform with the regulations or to check whether certain corner cases are possible in the given set of rules. We envision to address many of these problems by treating legal regulations in the same manner as system specifications. This allows to apply sophisticated formal methods from Electronic Design Automation (EDA). For this, we briefly discuss the process of (semi)-automatically formalizing legal regulations. Afterwards, we illustrate the correspondence of various problems in the considered domain (here: regulations on scales and fees for medical doctors) with well-known EDA problems. We sketch the application of formal methods by means of examples and envision that in the future, the exploitation of formal methods to analyse legal regulations will greatly help lawmakers and “end users” alike.



The authors would like to thank Betina Keiner, Matthias Richter, Lucjan Suchy, and Gottfried Antpöhler for the many fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) under grant no. KF2054902MS2 and KF2013014MS2 as well as the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant no. WI 3401/5-1.


  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A., Bjesse, P., Eén, N.: Symbolic reachability analysis based on SAT solvers. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 411–425. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brand, D.: Verification of large synthesized designs. In: International Conference on CAD, pp. 534–537 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 151–158 (1971)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Marneffe, M.C., MacCartney, B., Manning, C.D.: Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 449–454 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 337–340 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: SAT 2003, LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eggersglüß, S., Drechsler, R.: Efficient data structures and methodologies for SAT-based ATPG providing high fault coverage in industrial application. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 30(9), 1411–1415 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gebührenordnung für Ärzte (GOÄ). Online available at (2014)
  9. 9.
    IEEE Standard VHDL Language Reference Manual Amendment 1: Procedural Language Application Interface (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEEE Standard for Standard SystemC Language Reference Manual (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEEE Standard for SystemVerilog–Unified Hardware Design, Specification, and Verification Language (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keszocze, O., Keiner, B., Richter, M., Antpöhler, G., Wille, R.: (Semi-)automatic translation of legal regulations to formal representations: expanding the horizon of EDA applications. In: Forum on Specification & Design Languages (FDL) (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5), 506–521 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 530–535 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G. (eds.): The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Longman, Essex (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sennrich, R., Schneider, G., Volk, M., Warin, M.: A new hybrid dependency parser for German. In: Proceedings of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, pp. 115–124 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soltana, G., Fourneret, E., Adedjouma, M., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: Using UML for modeling procedural legal rules: approach and a study of Luxembourg’s tax law. In: Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 450–466. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison Wesley, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weilkiens, T.: Systems Engineering with SysML/UML: Modeling, Analysis, Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group for Computer ArchitectureUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Cyber-Physical Systems, DFKI GmbH BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Integrated CircuitsJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations