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

Sandy Beidu

dblp:166/1063 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › symbolic model checking
SAT-based model checking
0.212015
Symbolic Model Checking of Product-Line Requirements Using SAT-Based Methods · ICSE (1) 2015
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.212015
Symbolic Model Checking of Product-Line Requirements Using SAT-Based Methods · ICSE (1) 2015
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Incremental and Commutative Composition of State-Machine Models of Features
abstract
In this paper, we present a technique for incremental and commutative composition of state-machine models of features, using the Feature House framework. The inputs to Feature House are feature state-machines (or state-machine fragments) modelled in a feature-oriented requirement modelling language called FORML and the outputs are two state-machine models: (1) a model of the whole product line with optional features guarded by presence conditions, this model is suitable for family-based analysis of the product line, and (2) an intermediate model of composition that facilitates incremental composition of future features. We discuss the challenges and benefits of our approach and our implementation in the Feature House.
Sandy Beidu, Joanne M. Atlee, Pourya Shaker
MiSE@ICSE1
2015 Symbolic Model Checking of Product-Line Requirements Using SAT-Based Methods
abstract
Product line (PL) engineering promotes the development of families of related products, where individual products are differentiated by which optional features they include. Modelling and analyzing requirements models of PLs allows for early detection and correction of requirements errors -- including unintended feature interactions, which are a serious problem in feature-rich systems. A key challenge in analyzing PL requirements is the efficient verification of the product family, given that the number of products is too large to be verified one at a time. Recently, it has been shown how the high-level design of an entire PL, that includes all possible products, can be compactly represented as a single model in the SMV language, and model checked using the NuSMV tool. The implementation in NuSMV uses BDDs, a method that has been outperformed by SAT-based algorithms. In this paper we develop PL model checking using two leading SAT-based symbolic model checking algorithms: IMC and IC3. We describe the algorithms, prove their correctness, and report on our implementation. Evaluating our methods on three PL models from the literature, we demonstrate an improvement of up to 3 orders of magnitude over the existing BDD-based method.
Shoham Ben-David, Baruch Sterin, Joanne M. Atlee, Sandy Beidu
ICSE (1)4