Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proof Planning for Feature Interactions: A Preliminary Report

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2514))

Abstract

We report on an initial success obtained in investigating the Feature Interaction problem (FI) via proof planning. FIs arise as an unwanted/unexpected behaviour in large telephone networks and have recently attracted interest not only from the Computer Science community but also from the industrial world. So far, FIs have been solved mainly via approximation plus finite-state methods (model checking being the most popular); in our work we attack the problem via proof planning in First-Order Linear Temporal Logic (FOLTL), therefore making use of no finite-state approximation or restricting assumption about quantification. We have integrated the proof planner λCLAM with an object-level FOLTL theorem prover called FTL, and have so far re-discovered a feature interaction in a basic (but far from trivial) example.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Martin Abadí and Zohar Manna. Nonclausal deduction in first-order temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 37(2):279–317, April 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer-Verlag, 1988. Longer version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 349.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Muffy Calder, Mario Kolberg, Evan H. Magill, and Stephan Reiff-Marganiec. Feature interaction: A critical review and considered forecast. Computer Networks, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Muffy Calder and Alice Miller. Using SPIN for feature interaction analysis —A case study. In M.B. Dwyer, editor, Model checking software: 8th International SPIN Workshop, Toronto, Canada, May 19–20, 2001: proceedings, pages 143–162. Springer, 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 2057.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Castellini and A. Smaill. Tactic-based theorem proving in first-order modal and temporal logics. In E. Giunchiglia and F. Massacci, editors, Issues in the Design and Experimental Evaluation of Systems for Modal and Temporal Logics, TR DII 14/01. University of Siena, June 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Castellini and A. Smaill. Modular, uniform and normalising sequent calculi for quantified modal logics. Technical report, Division of Informatics, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Felty. Implementing tactics and tacticals in a higher-order logic programming language. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11(1):43–81, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Amy Felty. Temporal logic theorem proving and its application to the feature interaction problem. In E. Giunchiglia and F. Massacci, editors, Issues in the Design and Experimental Evaluation of Systems for Modal and Temporal Logics, TR DII 14/01. University of Siena, June 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Amy Felty and Laurent Thery. Interactive theorem proving with temporal logic. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 23(4):367–397, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Amy P. Felty and Kedar S. Namjoshi. Feature specification and automated conflict detection. In Feature Interactions Workshop. IOS Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dov M. Gabbay. Labelled Deductive Systems, Volume 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nancy Griffeth, Ralph Blumenthal, Jean-Charles Gregoire, and Tadashi Ohta. A feature interaction benchmark for the first feature interaction detection contest. Computer Networks (Amsterdam, Netherlands: 1999), 32(4):389–418, April 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. I. Hodkinson, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. Decidable fragments of first order temporal logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 106:85–134, 2000.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bengt Jonsson, Tiziana Margaria, Gustaf Naeser, Jan Nyström, and Bernhard Steffen. Incremental requirement specification for evolving systems. Nordic Journal of Computing, 8(1):65–87, Spring 2001.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Gopalan Nadathur and Dale Miller. Higher-order logic programming. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Volume 5: Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, Oxford, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Regimantas Pliuskevičius. On an ω-decidable deductive procedure for non-Horn sequents of a restricted FTL. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1861:523–537, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Natarajan Shankar. Proof search in the intuitionistic sequent calculus. In D. Kapur, editor, Proceedings 11th Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction, CADE’92, Saratoga Springs, CA, USA, 15–18 June 1992, volume 607, pages 522–536. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alan Smaill and Ian Green. Higher-order annotated terms for proof search. In Joakim von Wright, Jim Grundy, and John Harrison, editors, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: 9th International Conference, TPHOLs’96, volume 1275 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 399–414, Turku, Finland, 1996. Springer-Verlag. Also available as DAI Research Paper 799.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Luca Viganó. Labelled Non-Classical Logics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1HN, UK

    Claudio Castellini & Alan Smaill

Authors
  1. Claudio Castellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Smaill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Theoretische Informatik, Institut für Algebra und Diskrete Mathematik, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10, 1040, Wien, Austria

    Matthias Baaz

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13, 9PL, UK

    Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Castellini, C., Smaill, A. (2002). Proof Planning for Feature Interactions: A Preliminary Report. In: Baaz, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00010-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36078-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation