Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jon Damon Reese

dblp:79/3488 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1998
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 7 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers
Requirements engineering and software design · 92% Program analysis · 8%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Embedded and real-time systems · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.021998
Model Checking Large Software Specifications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998
Model Checking Large Software Specifications · SIGSOFT FSE 1996
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements validation
0.011997
Software Deviation Analysis · ICSE 1997
Requirements engineering and software design › formal specification
formal requirements specification
0.011994
Requirements Specification for Process-Control Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1994
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements specification
0.011994
Requirements Specification for Process-Control Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1994
Requirements engineering and software design › specification
software specification
0.011998
Model Checking Large Software Specifications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998
Requirements engineering and software design › formal specification
state-based specification
0.011998
Model Checking Large Software Specifications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1998
Requirements engineering and software design
formal specification
0.011996
Model Checking Large Software Specifications · SIGSOFT FSE 1996
Embedded and real-time systems › industrial control systems
process control
0.011994
Requirements Specification for Process-Control Systems · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1994

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

symbolic model checking · 0.1binary decision diagrams · 0.0qualitative reasoning · 0.0deviation propagation · 0.0formal specification language · 0.0formal modeling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1998 Model Checking Large Software Specifications
abstract
In this paper, we present our experiences in using symbolic model checking to analyze a specification of a software system for aircraft collision avoidance. Symbolic model checking has been highly successful when applied to hardware systems. We are interested in whether model checking can be effectively applied to large software specifications. To investigate this, we translated a portion of the state-based system requirements specification of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) into input to a symbolic model checker (SMV). We successfully used the symbolic model checker to analyze a number of properties of the system. We report on our experiences, describing our approach to translating the specification to the SMV language, explaining our methods for achieving acceptable performance, and giving a summary of the properties analyzed. Based on our experiences, we discuss the possibility of using model checking to aid specification development by iteratively applying the technique early in the development cycle. We consider the paper to be a data point for optimism about the potential for more widespread application of model checking to software systems.
William Chan 0001, Richard J. Anderson 0001, Paul Beame, Steven M. Burns, Francesmary Modugno, David Notkin, Jon Damon Reese
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.7
1997 Software Deviation Analysis
abstract
Validation of software requirements is an important part of software engineering.This paper describes a new safety analysis technique called software deviation analysis to help identify weaknesses in how software handles an imperfect environment.The technique propagates deviations in software inputs to output deviations.A qualitative analysis is used to improve the search efficiency.
Jon Damon Reese, Nancy G. Leveson
ICSE1
1997 Software Requirements Specification and System Safety
Mats P. E. Heimdahl, Jon Damon Reese
RE2
1997 Integrated Safety Analysis of Requirements Specifications
abstract
This paper describes an integrated approach to safety analysis of software requirements and demonstrates the feasibility and utility of applying the individual techniques and the integrated approach on the requirements specification of a guidance system for a high-speed civil transport being developed at NASA Ames. Each analysis found different types of errors in the specification; thus together the techniques provided a more comprehensive safety analysis than any individual technique. We also discovered that the more the analyst knew about the application and the model, the more successful they were in finding errors. Our findings imply that the most effective safety-analysis tool will assist rather than replace the analyst.
Francesmary Modugno, Nancy G. Leveson, Jon Damon Reese, Kurt Partridge, Sean D. Sandys
RE3
1997 Integrated Safety Analysis of Requirements Specifications
Francesmary Modugno, Nancy G. Leveson, Jon Damon Reese, Kurt Partridge, Sean D. Sandys
Requir. Eng.3
1996 Model Checking Large Software Specifications
abstract
In this paper we present our results and experiences of using symbolic model checking to study the specification of an aircraft collision avoidance system. Symbolic model checking has been highly successful when applied to hardware systems. We are interested in the question of whether or not model checking techniques can be applied to large software specifications.To investigate this, we translated a portion of the finite-state requirements specification of TCAS II (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) into a form accepted by a model checker (SMV). We successfully used the model checker to investigate a number of dynamic properties of the system.We report on our experiences, describing our approach to translating the specification to the SMV language and our methods for achieving acceptable performance in model checking, and giving a summary of the properties that we were able to check. We consider the paper as a data point that provides reason for optimism about the potential for successful application of model checking to software systems. In addition, our experiences provide a basis for characterizing features that would be especially suitable for model checkers built specifically for analyzing software systems.The intent of this paper is to evaluate symbolic model checking of state-machine based specifications, not to evaluate the TCAS II specification. We used a preliminary version of the specification, the version 6.00, dated March, 1993, in our study. We did not have access to later versions, so we do not know if the properties identified here are present in later versions.
Richard J. Anderson 0001, Paul Beame, Steven M. Burns, William Chan 0001, Francesmary Modugno, David Notkin, Jon Damon Reese
SIGSOFT FSE7
1994 Requirements Specification for Process-Control Systems
abstract
The paper describes an approach to writing requirements specifications for process-control systems, a specification language that supports this approach, and an example application of the approach and the language on an industrial aircraft collision avoidance system (TCAS II). The example specification demonstrates: the practicality of writing a formal requirements specification for a complex, process-control system; and the feasibility of building a formal model of a system using a specification language that is readable and reviewable by application experts who are not computer scientists or mathematicians. Some lessons learned in the process of this work, which are applicable both to forward and reverse engineering, are also presented.>
Nancy G. Leveson, Mats P. E. Heimdahl, Holly Hildreth, Jon Damon Reese
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.4