Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing the state explosion problem when visualizing off-nominal behaviors in a set of reactive requirements

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reactive systems with a large degree of human interaction can be vulnerable to off-nominal behaviors (ONBs) that arise from the human operator’s unpredictability. In prior research, we have addressed the ONB problems by developing an approach to translating a set of reactive requirements into the rule-based causal component model (CCM). The CCM’s analysis involved expanding the CCM rules into a larger set of rules that encompass the system’s entire state space, displaying both nominal and off-nominal behaviors as transition paths. However, a major limitation of CCM is the potential for state explosion, which grows as a function of the system’s component states. In this paper, we introduce the causal scenario model (CSM), which uses the same rule-based approach, while addressing the state explosion problem associated with CCM. The CSM grows as a function of system components and provides a visually concise alternative to CCM, while still providing information useful in the exposing and addressing of ONBs during the requirements analysis phase. We introduce CSM and demonstrate the effectiveness of CSM, using a case study that would be more difficult to visualize using CCM, and most other state-based modeling techniques.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aceituna D, Do H, Srinivasan S (2014) A systematic approach to transforming system requirements into model checking specifications. In: Jalote P, Briand LC, van der Hoek A (eds) ICSE companion. ACM, New York, pp 165–174. ISBN 978-1-4503-2768-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Aceituna D, Do H (2015) Exposing the susceptibility of off-nominal behaviors in reactive system requirements. In: Zowghi D, Gervasi V, Amyot D (eds), RE IEEE Computer Society, pp 136–145. ISBN 978-1-4673-6905-3

  3. Aceituna D (2017) Elicitation practices that can decrease vulnerability to off-nominal behaviors: lessons from using the causal component model. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Electron Electr Syst 10(1):83–94. doi:10.4271/2016-01-8109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Veram S, Lozito S, Kozon T, Ballinger D, Resnick H (2008) Procedures for off-nominal cases: very closely spaced parallel runway operations. In: Digital avionics systems conference, 2008. DASC 2008. IEEE/AIAA 27th, p 2-C. IEEE

  5. Duarte D, Farinha C, da Silva MM, da Silva AR (2012) Collaborative requirements elicitation with visualization techniques. In: Reddy S, Drira K (Eds) WETICE IEEE Computer Society, pp 343–348. ISBN 978-1-4673-1888-4

  6. Graphviz is a Graph Visualization Software that can be integrated into windows applications written in .NET. http://graphviz.org/

  7. Hooey BL, Gore BF, Wickens CD, Scott-Nash S, Socash C, Salud E, Foyle DC (2011) Modeling pilot situation awareness. In: Cacciabue C, Riccioli C, Luedtke A, Hjälmdahl M (eds) Human modelling in assisted transportation. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen J, Plakosh D, Keeler KL (2005) Robustness testing of software-intensive systems: explanation and guide. CMU Software Engineering Institute. Technical Note

  9. Thummalapenta S, de Halleux J, Tillmann N, Wadsworth S (2010) DyGen: automatic generation of high-coverage tests via mining gigabytes of dynamic traces. In: Fraser G, Gargantini A (eds) Tests and proofs. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Day J, Donahue K, Ingham M, Kadesch A, Kennedy A, Post E (2012) Modeling off-nominal behavior in SysML. Isabela, Infotech@ Aerospace, p 2576

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Lamsweerde A (2000) Formal specification: a roadmap. In: ICSE’00: proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, pp 147–159. ACM, New York

  12. Prevot T, Homola J, Mercer J, Mainini M, Cabrall C (2009) Initial evaluation of NextGen air/ground operations with ground-based automated separation assurance. In: Eighth USA/Europe air traffic management research and development seminar, Napa, CA

  13. Leveson NG (2001) The role of software in recent aerospace accidents. In: Proceedings of the 19th international system safety conference. System Safety Society, Unionville

  14. Armstrong MJ (2011) Identification of emergent off-nominal operational requirements during conceptual architecting of the more electric aircraft. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology

  15. Neerincx MA (2011) Situated cognitive engineering for crew support in space. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 15:445–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Giese H, Krüger I (2005) A summary of the ICSE 2004 workshop on “scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms, and tools”. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 30:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fraccone GC, Volovoi V, Colón AE, Blake M (2011) Novel air traffic procedures: investigation of off-nominal scenarios and potential hazards. J Aircr 48(1):127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fecher, H., & Grabe, I. (2007). Finite abstract models for deterministic transition systems: Fair parallel composition and refinement-preserving logic. In: International Symposium on Fundamentals of Software Engineering, Springer Berlin, pp. 1–16  

  19. Katoen J-P, Peled DA (2013) Taming confusion for modeling and implementing probabilistic concurrent systems. In: Felleisen M, Gardner P (eds) ESOP, pp 411–430. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-37035-9

  20. Katoen JP, Peled D (2013) Taming confusion for modeling and implementing probabilistic concurrent systems. In: European symposium on programming, pp 411–430. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

  21. Meredith DD (1973) Design and planning of engineering systems, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (Professional technical reference)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled D (1999) Model checking. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moffett J, Hall J, Coombes A, McDermid J (1996) A model for a causal logic for requirements engineering. Requir Eng 1(1):27–46. doi:10.1007/BF01235764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clarke EM, Emerson EA, Sistla AP (1986) Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. In: ACM TOPLAS, pp 244–263

  25. Keim DA, Andrienko GL, Fekete J-D, Görg C, Kohlhammer J, Melançon G (2008) Visual analytics: definition, process, and challenges. In: Kerren A, Stasko JT, Fekete J-D, North C (eds) Information visualization, vol 4950. Springer, Berlin, pp 154–175. ISBN 978-3-540-70955-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers BA, Chandhok R, Sareen A (1988) Automatic data visualization for novice Pascal programmers. In: VL, pp 192–198. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-8186-0876-5

  27. Cox PT, Giles FR, Pietrzykowski T (1989) Prograph: a step towards liberating programming from textual conditioning. In: VL, pp 150–156. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-8186-2002-1

  28. Shu NC (1989) Visual programming: perspectives and approaches. IBM Syst J 28(4):525

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gane C, Sarson T (1979) Structured systems analysis: tools and techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. ISBN 0138545472

    Google Scholar 

  30. DeMarco T (1979) Structured analysis and system specification. Yourdon Press, Raleigh. ISBN 0-13-854380-1

    Google Scholar 

  31. Satoshi M, Ishio T, Inoue K (2009) OGAN: visualizing object interaction scenarios based on dynamic interaction context. In: ICPC, pp 283–284. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 978-1-4244-3997-3

  32. Jaafar J, Atan M, HAMID N (2011) Collaborative mind map tool to facilitate requirement elicitation. In: 3rd International conference on computing and informatics, pp 214–219

  33. Reddivari S, Chen Z, Niu N (2012) ReCVisu: a tool for clustering-based visual exploration of requirements. In: Heimdahl MPE, Sawyer P (eds) RE, pp 327–328. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 978-1-4673-2783-1

  34. Niu N, Reddivari S, Chen Z (2013) Keeping requirements on track via visual analytics. In: 21st IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE 2013), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 15–19, pp 205–214

  35. Reddivari S, Rad S, Bhowmik T, Cain N, Niu N (2014) Visual requirements analytics: a framework and case study. Requir Eng 19(3):257–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Asnar Y, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J (2011) Goal-driven risk assessment in requirements engineering. Requir Eng 16(2):101–116. doi:10.1007/s00766-010-0112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Khan MA, Mahmood S (2012) A graph based requirements clustering approach for component selection. Adv Eng Softw 54:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Donzelli P, Hirschbach D, Basili VR (2005) Using visualization to understand dependability: a tool support for requirements analysis. In: SEW, pp 315–324. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-7695-2306-4

  39. Regnell B, Andersson M, Bergstrand J (1996) A hierarchical use case model with graphical representation. In: ECBS, p 270. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-8186-7355-9

  40. Lintulampi R, Pulli P (1991) Graphical prototyping of tasking behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE workshop on real-time operating systems and software

  41. Dähler J, Gerber P, Gisiger HP, Kündig A (1987) A graphical tool for the design and prototyping of distributed systems. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 12(3):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Petri C (1962) Kommunikation mit Automaten. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institut for instrumentelle Mathematik

  43. Peterson J (1983) Petri net theory and the modelling of systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tsalgatidou A (1990) Modelling and animating information systems dynamics. Inf Process Lett 36:123–127

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Siddiqi J, Morrey I, Hibberd R, Buckberry G (1994) Towards a system for the construction, clarification, discovery and formalisation of requirements. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on requirements engineering, pp 230–238. IEEE

  46. Kramer J, Keng N (1988) Animation of requirements specifications. Softw Pract Exp 18:749–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lalioti V, Loucopoulos P (1993) Visualisation for validation. In: Rolland C, Bodart F, Cauvet C (eds) CAiSE, pp 143–164. Springer. ISBN 3-540-56777-1

  48. Diaz-Gonzales JP, Urban JE (1988) Language aspects of ENVISAGER: an object-oriented environment for the specification of real-time systems. In: ICCL, pp 214–225. IEEE. ISBN 0-8186-0874-9

  49. Ohnishi A (1999) Vrdl: a visual software requirements language. Trans SDPS 3:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  50. Blumofe R, Hecht A (1988) Executing real-time structured analysis specifications. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 13(3):32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Parry P, Ozcan MB, Siddiqi J (1993) The application of visualisation to requirements engineering, In: Proceedings of Human Centered Technology Workshop, sponsored by School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, p. 25

  52. Ozcan MB (1993) An integrated rapid prototyping environment based on executable specifications. Doctoral dissertation

  53. Ball DR (1992) GPSS/VI. In: Crain RC (ed) Winter simulation conference, pp 426–430. ACM Press. ISBN 0-7803-0798-4

  54. Green TRG (1977) Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. J Occup Psychol 50(2):93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Canal Monitoring and Control System case study provided by the Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE), during the 2011 Requirements Engineering conference, Trento, Italy.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by NSF CAREER Award CCF-1564238 to University of North Texas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Distek Integration Inc., Cedar Falls, IA, USA

    Daniel Aceituna

  2. University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Hyunsook Do

Authors
  1. Daniel Aceituna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyunsook Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Aceituna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aceituna, D., Do, H. Addressing the state explosion problem when visualizing off-nominal behaviors in a set of reactive requirements. Requirements Eng 24, 161–180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0281-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0281-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation