Exposing Design Mistakes During Requirements Engineering by Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems to Obtain Minimum Correction Subsets

Alexander Diedrich, Björn Böttcher, Oliver Niggemann

Abstract

In recent years, the complexity of production plants and therefore of the underlying automation systems has grown significantly. This makes the manual design of automation systems increasingly difficult. As a result, errors are found only during production, plant modifications are hindered by not maintainable automation solutions and criteria such as energy efficiency or cost are often not optimized. This work shows how utilizing Minimum Correction Subsets (MCS) of a Constraint Satisfaction Problem improves the collaboration of automation system designers and prevents inconsistent requirements and thus subsequent errors in the design. This opens up a new field of application for constraint satisfaction techniques. As a use case, an example from the field of automation system design is presented. To meet the automation industry’s requirement for standardised solutions that assure reliability, the calculation of MCS is formulated in such a way that most constraint solvers can be used without any extensions. Experimental results with typical problems demonstrate the practicalness concerning runtime and hardware resources.

References

  1. Ansotegui, C., Bonet, M. L., and Levy, J. (2013). Sat-based maxsat algorithms. Artificial Intelligence , 196:77- 105.
  2. Bartak, R. (1999). Constraint programming: In pursuit of the holy grail. In in Proceedings of WDS99 (invited lecture), pages 555-564.
  3. Becket, R. (2015). Specification of flatzinc-version 1.6.
  4. Benavides, D., Cortés, R. A., and Trinidad, P. (2004). Coping with automatic reasoning on software product lines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management.
  5. Benavides, D., Segura, S., and Ruiz-Cortés, A. (2010). Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Information Systems, 35(6):615- 636.
  6. Bofill, M., Palahí, M., Suy, J., and Villaret, M. (2012). Solving constraint satisfaction problems with sat modulo theories. Constraints, 17(3):273-303.
  7. B öttcher, B., Moriz, N., and Niggemann, O. (2014). From formal requirements on technical systems to complete designs - a holistic approach. In Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., and O'Sullivan, B., editors, 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , pages 977-978.
  8. Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Hernandez, N. V., and Wood, K. L. (2011). Computer-based design synthesis research: an overview. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 11(2):021003.
  9. Czarnecki, K. and Eisenecker, U. W. (2000). Generative programming: methods, tools, and applications.
  10. Czarnecki, K., Hwan, C., Kim, P., and Kalleberg, K. (2006). Feature models are views on ontologies. In Software Product Line Conference, 2006 10th International, pages 41-51. IEEE.
  11. Fay, A., Vogel-Heuser, B., Frank, T., Eckert, K., Hadlich, T., and Diedrich, C. (2015). Enhancing a model-based engineering approach for distributed manufacturing automation systems with characteristics and design patterns. Journal of Systems and Software, 101(0):221 - 235.
  12. Felfernig, A., Benavides, D., Galindo, J., and Reinfrank, F. (2013). Towards anomaly explanation in feature models. In Workshop on Configuration, Vienna, Austria , pages 117-124.
  13. Freuder, E. C. and Wallace, R. J. (1992). Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence , 58(1):21-70.
  14. Gruner, S., Weber, P., and Epple, U. (2014). Rule-based engineering using declarative graph database queries. In Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2014 12th IEEE International Conference on, pages 274-279.
  15. Gu, J., Purdom, P. W., Franco, J., and Wah, B. W. (1999). Algorithms for the satisfiability (sat) problem . Springer.
  16. Jiang, Y., Kautz, H., and Selman, B. (1995). Solving problems with hard and soft constraints using a stochastic algorithm for max-sat. In 1st International Joint Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research. Citeseer.
  17. Koshimura, M., Zhang, T., Fujita, H., and Hasegawa, R. (2012). Qmaxsat: A partial max-sat solver. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation , 8:95-100.
  18. Kuegel, A. (2010). Improved exact solver for the weighted max-sat problem. POS@ SAT, 8:15-27.
  19. Kumar, V. (1992). Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: A survey. AI magazine, 13(1):32.
  20. Liffiton, M. H. and Sakallah, K. A. (2005). On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing , pages 173-186. Springer.
  21. Maher, M. L. (1990). Process models for design synthesis. AI magazine, 11:49.
  22. Marques-Silva, J., Heras, F., Janota, M., Previti, A., and Belov, A. (2013). On computing minimal correction subsets. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 615-622. AAAI Press.
  23. Mendonca, M., Wa¸sowski, A., and Czarnecki, K. (2009). Sat-based analysis of feature models is easy. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 09, pages 231-240, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Carnegie Mellon University.
  24. Moriz, N., Böttcher, B., Niggemann, O., and Lackhove, J. (2014). Assisted design for automation systems - from formal requirements to final designs. In 19th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Barcelona, Spain.
  25. Nie, K., Yue, T., Ali, S., Zhang, L., and Fan, Z. (2013). Constraints: the core of supporting automated product configuration of cyber-physical systems. In ModelDriven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 370-387. Springer.
  26. Rincón, L., Giraldo, G., Mazo, R., Salinesi, C., and Diaz, D. (2015). Method to identify corrections of defects on product line models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 314:61-81.
  27. Tamura, N., Taga, A., Kitagawa, S., and Banbara, M. (2009). Compiling finite linear csp into sat. Constraints, 14(2):254-272.
  28. Tamura, N., Tanjo, T., and Banbara, M. (2008). System description of a sat-based csp solver sugar. Proc. 3rd International CSP Solver Competition, pages 71-75.
  29. Törngren, M., Qamar, A., Biehl, M., Loiret, F., and ElKhoury, J. (2014). Integrating viewpoints in the development of mechatronic products. Mechatronics, 24(7):745-762.
  30. Vogel-Heuser, B., Sch ütz, D., Frank, T., and Legat, C. (2014). Model-driven engineering of manufacturing automation software projects - a sysml-based approach. Mechatronics, 24(7):883 - 897. 1. ModelBased Mechatronic System Design 2. Model Based Engineering.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Diedrich A., Böttcher B. and Niggemann O. (2016). Exposing Design Mistakes During Requirements Engineering by Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems to Obtain Minimum Correction Subsets . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-172-4, pages 280-287. DOI: 10.5220/0005679102800287


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart16,
author={Alexander Diedrich and Björn Böttcher and Oliver Niggemann},
title={Exposing Design Mistakes During Requirements Engineering by Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems to Obtain Minimum Correction Subsets},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2016},
pages={280-287},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005679102800287},
isbn={978-989-758-172-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - Exposing Design Mistakes During Requirements Engineering by Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems to Obtain Minimum Correction Subsets
SN - 978-989-758-172-4
AU - Diedrich A.
AU - Böttcher B.
AU - Niggemann O.
PY - 2016
SP - 280
EP - 287
DO - 10.5220/0005679102800287