天天看点
返回

软件工程中的系统文献映射研究实例-结果概览（第一部分）

之前的博客详细描述了软件工程中的系统文献映射研究方法。这里接着给出一个我曾经做过的工作作为例子，以更直观地展示这种研究类型。

简单回顾一下，这个实例的一些背景信息。

目的：

以研究者和实践者的角度探索并分析软件开发中的假设条件及其管理。该目标可进一步分解为九个研究问题：对软件开发中的假设条件的理解；假设条件管理活动、方法、工具；假设条件管理的涉众、收益、挑战、经验；未被妥善管理的假设条件所造成的后果。

检索数据库：ACM Digital Library、IEEE Explore、Science Direct、Springer Link、Wiley InterScience、EI Compendex、ISI Web of Science 

数据库检索表达式：

“(software) AND (assumption OR assume OR assuming)”

检索时间范围：

2001年-2015年

入选标准：  

I1：该文献关注软件开发中的假设条件（如需求的假设条件）。  

排除标准：  

E1：该文献关注方法或工具的假设条件。  

E2：该文献未经同行评审（如技术报告）[2]。  

E3：如果同一工作在多篇文献中出现，排除较不成熟的文献。  

E4：该文献的语言不是英语。  

E5：该文献仅有摘要而无全文。  

E6：该文献仅仅提到假设条件的术语。  

E7：该文献没有用于回答研究问题的有效数据。

以下给出结果的概览：

在七个数据库中共检索得到了19428篇文献。第一轮筛选后共入选了302篇文献。第二轮筛选后共入选了108篇文献。通过滚雪球共入选了25篇文献。通过扩展检索和筛选共入选了1篇文献。此系统文献映射研究中总计134篇文献最终入选。

软件工程中的系统文献映射研究实例-结果概览（第一部分）

60.4%的文献（134篇文献中的81篇）发表于会议，25.4%的文献（134篇文献中的34篇）发表于期刊。134篇文献发表于总计94个不同来源。

软件工程中的系统文献映射研究实例-结果概览（第一部分）

排在前两位的分别是International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (134篇文献中的6篇；4.5%) and Journal of Systems and Software (134文献中的5篇；3.7%)。

发表来源 类型 数量（%）
International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV) 会议 6 (4.5%)
Journal of Systems and Software 期刊 5 (3.7%)
International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) 会议 4 (3.0%)
International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) 会议 4 (3.0%)
Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC) 会议 4 (3.0%)
International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS) 会议 4 (3.0%)
International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS) 会议 4 (3.0%)
Formal Methods in System Design 期刊 3 (2.2%)
International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) 会议 3 (2.2%)
International Workshop on Software Evolvability (SE) 研讨会 3 (2.2%)
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 期刊 2 (1.5%)
IET Software 期刊 2 (1.5%)
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 期刊 2 (1.5%)
Science of Computer Programming 期刊 2 (1.5%)
Requirements Engineering 期刊 2 (1.5%)
International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP) 会议 2 (1.5%)
Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) 会议 2 (1.5%)
International Conference on Pervasive Services (ICPS) 会议 2 (1.5%)
International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) 会议 2 (1.5%)
International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture (TwinPeaks) 研讨会 2 (1.5%)
Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge (SHARK) 研讨会 2 (1.5%)

在2008年发表数量达到峰值（即15篇），一个主要原因是某研究组在该年内发表了四篇文章。

软件工程中的系统文献映射研究实例-结果概览（第一部分）

134篇文献中有94篇（70.1%）的作者来自学术界；8篇文献（6.0%）的作者来自工业界；32篇文献（23.9%）的作者两者皆有。

软件工程中的系统文献映射研究实例-结果概览（第一部分）

概览这个部分就介绍到这里，这项研究有9个研究问题，后续博客会陆续给出这9个研究问题的答案。

以下附上入选的文献。

  1. A. Askarov, S. Chong, and H. Mantel. Hybrid monitors for concurrent noninterference. In: Proceedings of the 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), Verona, Italy, pp. 137-151, 2015.
  2. Ö. Albayrak, D. Albayrak, and T. Kılıç. Are software engineers' responses to incomplete requirements related to project characteristics? In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies (ICADIWT), London, UK, pp. 124-129, 2009.
  3. Ö. Albayrak, H. Kurtoğlu, and M. Bıçakçı. Incomplete software requirements and assumptions made by software engineers. In: Proceedings of the 16th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Penang, Malaysia, pp. 333-339, 2009.
  4. R. Ali, F. Dalpiaz, P. Giorgini, and V.E.S. Souza. Requirements evolution: from assumptions to reality. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS), London, UK, pp. 372-382, 2011.
  5. J. Arnowitz, M. Arent, and N. Berger. Verify Prototype Assumptions and Requirements. In: User Experience Re-Mastered: Your Guide to Getting the Right Design, Elsevier, pp. 221-240, 2010.
  6. J.D. Arthur, R.E. Nance, A. Bazaz, and O. Balci. Mitigating security risks in systems that support pervasive services and computing: Access-driven verification, validation and testing. In: Proceedings of the 22th IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Services (ICPS), Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 109-117, 2007.
  7. T. Arts, M. Dorigatti, and S. Tonetta. Making implicit safety requirements explicit. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP), Florence, Italy, pp. 81-92, 2014.
  8. M. Autili, P. Inverardi, and M. Tivoli. Assessing Dependability for Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Is There a Role for Software Architectures? In: Patterns, Programming and Everything. Springer London, pp. 1-12, 2010.
  9. I. Bate and N. Audsley. Flexible design of complex high-integrity systems using trade offs. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), Tampa, FL, USA, pp. 22-31, 2004.
  10. S. Bauer, R. Hennicker, and A. Legay. A meta-theory for component interfaces with contracts on ports. Science of Computer Programming, 91(10): 70-89, 2014.
  11. A. Bazaz, J.D. Arthur, and J.G. Tront. Modeling security vulnerabilities: A constraints and assumptions perspective. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing (DASC), Indianapolis, IN, USA, pp. 95-102, 2006.
  12. J. Bhuta and B. Boehm. A framework for identification and resolution of interoperability mismatches in cots-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Incorporating COTS Software into Software Systems: Tools and Techniques (IWICSS), Minneapolis, MN, USA, Article No. 2, 2007.
  13. C. Blundell, D. Giannakopoulou, and C.S. Păsăreanu. Assume-guarantee testing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 31(2): Article No. 1, 2005.
  14. M.G. Bobaru, C.S. Păsăreanu, and D. Giannakopoulou. Automated assume-guarantee reasoning by abstraction refinement. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Princeton, NJ, USA, pp. 135-148, 2008.
  15. S. Bogomolov, G. Frehse, M. Greitschus, R. Grosu, C. Pasareanu, A. Podelski, and T. Strump. Assume-guarantee abstraction refinement meets hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Haifa Verification Conference on Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing (HVC), Haifa, Israel, pp. 116-131, 2014.
  16. C. Brenner, J. Greenyer, and V. Panzica La Manna. The ScenarioTools play-out of modal sequence diagram specifications with environment assumptions. Electronic Communications of the EASST, 58, 2013.
  17. J.Y. Brunel, M. Di Natale, A. Ferrari, P. Giusto, and L. Lavagno. Softcontract: an assertion-based software development process that enables design-by-contract. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), Paris, France, pp. 358-363, 2004.
  18. D. Bush and A. Finkelstein. Requirements stability assessment using scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Monterey Bay, CA, USA, pp. 23-32, 2003.
  19. G. Bobeff and J. Noyé. Component specialization. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM), Verona, Italy, pp. 39-50, 2004.
  20. S. Chaki, E. Clarke, N. Sharygina, and N. Sinha. Verification of evolving software via component substitutability analysis. Formal Methods in System Design, 32(3): 235-266, 2008.
  21. S. Chaki, E. Clarke, N. Sinha, and P. Thati. Automated assume-guarantee reasoning for simulation conformance. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, pp. 534-547, 2005.
  22. A. Chakrabarti, L. de Alfaro, T.A. Henzinger, and F.Y.C. Mang. Synchronous and bidirectional component interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 414-427, 2002.
  23. A. Chakrabarti, L. de Alfaro, T.A. Henzinger, M. Jurdziński, and F.Y.C. Mang. Interface compatibility checking for software modules. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 428-441, 2002.
  24. G. Chroust. The empty chair: uncertain futures and systemic dichotomies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(3): 227-236, 2004.
  25. A. Cimatti, M. Dorigatti, and S. Tonetta. OCRA: A tool for checking the refinement of temporal contracts. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Silicon Valley, CA, USA, pp. 702-705, 2013.
  26. A. Cimatti and S. Tonetta. A property-based proof system for contract-based design. In: Proceedings of the 38th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), Cesme, Izmir, Turkey, pp. 21-28, 2012.
  27. A. Cimatti and S. Tonetta. Contracts-refinement proof system for component-based embedded systems. Science of Computer Programming, 97(1): 333-348, 2015.
  28. J.M. Cobleigh, G.S. Avrunin, and L.A. Clarke. Breaking up is hard to do: An evaluation of automated assume-guarantee reasoning. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 17(2): Article No. 7, 2007.
  29. J.M. Cobleigh, D. Giannakopoulou, and C.S. Păsăreanu. Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS) Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS), Warsaw, Poland, pp. 331-346, 2003.
  30. D. Cofer, A. Gacek, S. Miller, M.W. Whalen, B. LaValley, and L. Sha. Compositional verification of architectural models. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on NASA Formal Methods (NFM), Norfolk, VA, USA, pp. 126-140, 2012.
  31. S. Cohen, W. Money, and S. Kaisler. Service migration in an enterprise system architecture. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Big Island, HI, USA, pp. 1-10, 2009.
  32. M. Daneva and R. Wieringa. Requirements engineering for cross-organizational ERP implementation undocumented assumptions and potential mismatches. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), Paris, France, pp. 63-72, 2005.
  33. L. de Alfaro and M. Stoelinga. Interfaces: A game-theoretic framework for reasoning about component-based systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 97(7): 3-23, 2004.
  34. V. De Florio. Software Assumptions Failure Tolerance: Role, Strategies, and Visions. In: Architecting Dependable Systems VII. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 249-272, 2010.
  35. C. de la Riva and J. Tuya. Automatic generation of assumptions for modular verification of software specifications. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(9): 1324-1340, 2005.
  36. E. Denney and B. Fischer. A verification-driven approach to traceability and documentation for auto-generated mathematical software. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 560-564, 2009.
  37. P. Derler, E.A. Lee, S. Tripakis, and M. Törngren. Cyber-physical system design contracts. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), Philadelphia, USA, pp. 109-118, 2013.
  38. N. D'ippolito, V. Braberman, N. Piterman, and S. Uchitel. Synthesizing nonanomalous event-based controllers for liveness goals. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 22(1): Article No. 9, 2013.
  39. Z. Dwaikat and F. Parisi-Presicce. Risky trust: risk-based analysis of software systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Software Engineering for Secure Systems (SESS), St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp. 1-7, 2005.
  40. U. Eliasson, R. Heldal, J. Lantz, and C. Berger. Agile model-driven engineering in mechatronic systems - An industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), Valencia, Spain, pp. 433-449, 2014.
  41. M. Emmi, D. Giannakopoulou, and C.S. Păsăreanu. Assume-guarantee verification for interface automata. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM), Turku, Finland, pp. 116-131, 2008.
  42. J. Fabry, C. De Roover, and V. Jonckers. Aspectual source code analysis with GASR. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 53-62, 2013.
  43. S. Faily and I. Fléchais. The secret lives of assumptions: Developing and refining assumption personas for secure system design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human-Centred Software Engineering (HCSE), Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 111-118, 2010.
  44. M. Feilkas and D. Ratiu. Ensuring well-behaved usage of APIs through syntactic constraints. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 248-253, 2008.
  45. Q. Feng and R. Lutz. Assessing the effect of software failures on trust assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Seattle, Redmond, WA, USA, pp. 291-292, 2008.
  46. A. Filieri and C. Ghezzi. Further steps towards efficient runtime verification: Handling probabilistic cost models. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering: Rigorous and Agile Approaches (FormSERA), Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 2-8, 2012.
  47. C. Flanagan, S.N. Freund, and S. Qadeer. Thread-modular verification for shared-memory programs. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP) Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS), Grenoble, France, pp. 262-277, 2002.
  48. C.H. Fleming and N. Leveson. Integrating systems safety into systems engineering during concept development. International Council on Systems Engineering Symposium (INCOSE), 25(1): 989-1003, 2015.
  49. D. Garlan, R. Allen, and J.M. Ockerbloom. Architectural mismatch: Why reuse is still so hard. IEEE Software, 26(4): 66-69, 2009.
  50. A.Q. Gates and O. Mondragon. FasTLInC: a constraint-based tracing approach. Journal of Systems and Software, 63(3): 241-258, 2002.
  51. A. Ghabi and A. Egyed. Exploiting traceability uncertainty among artifacts and code. Journal of Systems and Software, 108(10): 178-192, 2015.
  52. M. Gheorghiu, D. Giannakopoulou, and C.S. Păsăreanu. Refining interface alphabets for compositional verification. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Braga, Portugal, pp. 292-307, 2007.
  53. D. Giannakopoulou, C.S. Păsăreanu, and H. Barringer. Component verification with automatically generated assumptions. Automated Software Engineering, 12(3): 297-320, 2005.
  54. D. Giannakopoulou, C.S. Păsăreanu, and C. Blundell. Assume-guarantee testing for software components. IET Software, 2(6): 547-562, 2008.
  55. D. Giannakopoulou, C.S. Păsăreanu, and J.M. Cobleigh. Assume-guarantee verification of source code with design-level assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, pp. 211-220, 2004.
  56. J. Greenyer and E. Kindler. Compositional synthesis of controllers from scenario-based assume-guarantee specifications. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), Miami, FL, USA, pp. 774-789, 2013.
  57. M. Goldman and S. Katz. MAVEN: Modular aspect verification. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software (ETAPS), Braga, Portugal, pp. 308-322, 2007.
  58. A. Gupta, K.L. McMillan, and Z. Fu. Automated assumption generation for compositional verification. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Berlin, Germany, pp. 420-432, 2007.
  59. I. Habli and T. Kelly. Capturing and replaying architectural knowledge through derivational analogy. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge Architecture, Rationale, and Design Intent (SHARK-ADI), Minneapolis, MN, USA: Article No. 4, 2007.
  60. C.B. Haley, R.C. Laney, J.D. Moffett, and B. Nuseibeh. Using trust assumptions with security requirements. Requirements Engineering, 11(2): 138-151, 2006.
  61. C.B. Haley, R.C. Laney, J.D. Moffett, and B. Nuseibeh. Security requirements engineering: A framework for representation and analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(1): 133-153, 2008.
  62. C.B. Haley, J.D. Moffett, R.C. Laney, and B. Nuseibeh. Arguing security: Validating security requirements using structured argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Requirements Engineering for Information Security (SREIS) held in conjunction with the 13th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Paris, France, pp. 21-28, 2005.
  63. C.B. Haley and B. Nuseibeh. Bridging requirements and architecture for systems of systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Technology (ITSim), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 1-8, 2008.
  64. U. Hannemann and J. Hooman. Formal design of real-time components on a shared data space architecture. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 143-150, 2001.
  65. T.A. Henzinger, M. Minea, and V. Prabhu. Assume-guarantee reasoning for hierarchical hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC), Rome, Italy, pp. 275-290, 2001.
  66. T.M. Hesse and B. Paech. Supporting the collaborative development of requirements and architecture documentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture (TwinPeaks), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 22-26, 2013.
  67. T. Heyman, R. Scandariato, and W. Joosen. Security in context: analysis and refinement of software architectures. In: Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Seoul, South Korea, pp. 161-170, 2010.
  68. R. High, Jr., G. Krishnan, and M. Sanchez. Creating and maintaining coherency in loosely coupled systems. IBM Systems Journal, 47(3): 357-376, 2008.
  69. K. Hiraishi and P. Kucera. Application of DES theory to verification of software components. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, E92-A (No. 2): 604-610, 2009.
  70. P.A. Hsiung and S.Y. Cheng. Automating formal modular verification of asynchronous real-time embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on VLSI Design (VLSI Design), New Delhi, India, pp. 249-254, 2003.
  71. P.N. Hung, T. Aoki, and T. Katayama. An effective framework for assume-guarantee verification of evolving component-based software. In: Proceedings of the Joint International and Annual ERCIM Workshops on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 109-118, 2009.
  72. P.N. Hung, V.H. Nguyen, T. Aoki, and T. Katayama. An improvement of minimized assumption generation method for component-based software verification. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE RIVF International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies, Research, Innovation, and Vision for the Future (RIVF), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, pp. 1-6, 2012.
  73. P. Inverardi and S. Uchitel. Proving deadlock freedom in component-based programming. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), Genova, Italy, pp. 60-75, 2001.
  74. F. Ishikawa, B. Suleiman, K. Yamamoto, and S. Honiden. Physical interaction in pervasive computing: formal modeling, analysis and verification. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Pervasive Services (ICPS), Split, Croatia, pp. 133-140, 2009.
  75. H. Jin and P. Santhanam. An approach to higher reliability using software components. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Hong Kong, China, pp. 2-11, 2001.
  76. J. Kanig, R. Chapman, C. Comar, J. Guitton, Y. Moy, and E. Rees. Explicit assumptions-a prenup for marrying static and dynamic program verification. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tests and Proofs (TAP), York, UK, pp. 142-157, 2014.
  77. E. Katz and S. Katz. User queries for specification refinement treating shared aspect join points. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Pisa, Italy, pp. 73-82, 2010.
  78. D. Klappholz and D. Port. Introduction to MBASE (Model-Based (System) Architecting and Software Engineering). Advances in Computers, 62: 203-248, 2004.
  79. R. Klendauer, M. Berkovich, R. Gelvin, J.M. Leimeister, and H. Krcmar. Towards a competency model for requirements analysts. Information Systems Journal, 22(6): 475-503, 2012.
  80. A.J. Ko, M.J. Lee, V. Ferrari, S. Ip, and C. Tran. A case study of post-deployment user feedback triage. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), Waikiki, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 1-8, 2011.
  81. A. Komuravelli, C.S. Păsăreanu, and E.M. Clarke. Assume-guarantee abstraction refinement for probabilistic systems. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 310-326, 2012.
  82. R. Kumar and B.H. Krogh. Heterogeneous verification of embedded control systems. In: Proceedings of the 47th American Control Conference (ACC), Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp. 4597-4602, 2006.
  83. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, D. Parker, and H. Qu. Assume-guarantee verification for probabilistic systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Paphos, Cyprus, pp. 23-37, 2010.
  84. P. Lago and H. van Vliet. Observations from the recovery of a software product family. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC), Boston, MA, USA, pp. 214-227, 2004.
  85. P. Lago and H. van Vliet. Explicit assumptions enrich architectural models. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), St Louis, Missouri, USA, pp. 206-214, 2005.
  86. C. Landauer. Wrapping architectures for long-term sustainability. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Software Evolvability (SE), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 44-49, 2006.
  87. C. Landauer and K.L. Bellman. Self managed adaptability with wrappings. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Software Evolvability (SE), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 29-34, 2005.
  88. D.V. Landuyt, E. Truyen, and W. Joosen. On the modularity impact of architectural assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Next Generation Modularity Approaches for Requirements and Architecture (NEMARA), Potsdam, Germany, pp. 13-16, 2012.
  89. D.V. Landuyt, E. Truyen, and W. Joosen. Documenting early architectural assumptions in scenario-based requirements. In: Proceedings of the Joint 10th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and 6th European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA), Helsinki, Finland, pp. 329-333, 2012.
  90. D.V. Landuyt and W. Joosen. Modularizing early architectural assumptions in scenario-based requirements. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE) Grenoble, France, pp. 170-184, 2014.
  91. D.V. Landuyt and W. Joosen. On the role of early architectural assumptions in quality attribute scenarios: a qualitative and quantitative study. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture (TwinPeaks), Florence, Italy, pp. 9-15, 2015.
  92. M.M. Lehman. The role and impact of assumptions in software development, maintenance and evolution. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Software Evolvability (IWSE), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 3-14, 2005.
  93. M.M. Lehman and J.F. Ramil. Rules and tools for software evolution planning and management. Annals of Software Engineering, 11(1): 15-44, 2001.
  94. J. Li, X. Sun, F. Xie, and X. Song. Component-based abstraction and refinement. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR), Beijing, China, pp. 39-51, 2008.
  95. S.W. Lin, É. André, Y. Liu, J. Sun, and J.S. Dong. Learning assumptions for compositional verification of timed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(2): 137-153, 2003.
  96. C. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Zhao, and Z. Jin. Analyzing early requirements of cyber-physical systems through structure and goal modeling. In: Proceedings of the 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 140-147, 2013.
  97. Z. Lu, S. Li, A. Ghose, and P. Hyland. Extending semantic web service description by service assumption. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI), Hong Kong, China, pp. 637-643, 2006.
  98. S. Maoz and Y. Sa’ar. Assume-guarantee scenarios: semantics and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 335-351, 2012.
  99. J. Marinčić, A. Mader, and R. Wieringa. Classifying assumptions made during requirements verification of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ), Montpellier, France, pp. 141-146, 2008.
  100. A. Miranskyy, N. Madhavji, M. Davison, and M. Reesor. Modelling assumptions and requirements in the context of project risk. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), Paris, France, pp. 471-472, 2005.
  101. J.P. Near, A. Milicevic, E. Kang, and D. Jackson. A lightweight code analysis and its role in evaluation of a dependability case. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Honolulu, HI, USA, pp. 31-40, 2011.
  102. W. Nam and R. Alur. Learning-based symbolic assume-guarantee reasoning with automatic decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis (ATVA), Beijing, China, pp. 170-185, 2006.
  103. W. Nam, P. Madhusudan, and R. Alur. Automatic symbolic compositional verification by learning assumptions. Formal Methods in System Design, 32(3): 207-234, 2008.
  104. A. Nhlabatsi, Y. Yu, A. Zisman, T. Tun, N. Khan, and A. Bandara. Managing security control assumptions using causal traceability. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software and Systems Traceability (SST), Florence, Italy, pp. 43-49, 2015.
  105. I. Ostacchini and M. Wermelinger. Managing assumptions during agile development. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge (SHARK), Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 9-16, 2009.
  106. V. Page, M. Dixon, and P. Bielkowicz. Object-oriented graceful evolution monitors. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Object-Oriented Information Systems (OOIS), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 46-59, 2003.
  107. V. Page, M. Dixon, and I. Choudhury. Mitigating data gathering obstacles within an agile information systems development environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), London, UK, pp. 11-16, 2006.
  108. V. Page, M. Dixon, and I. Choudhury. Security risk mitigation for information systems. BT Technology Journal, 25(1): 118-127, 2007.
  109. P. Parizek and F. Plasil. Assume-guarantee verification of software components in sofa 2 framework. IET Software, 4(3): 210-211, 2010.
  110. C.S. Păsăreanu, D. Giannakopoulou, M.G. Bobaru, J.M. Cobleigh, and H. Barringer. Learning to divide and conquer: applying the L* algorithm to automate assume-guarantee reasoning. Formal Methods in System Design, 32(3): 175-205, 2008.
  111. A. Rae, D. Jackson, P. Ramanan, J. Flanz, and D. Leyman. Critical feature analysis of a radiotherapy machine. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP), Edinburgh, UK, pp. 221-234, 2005.
  112. A.J. Ramirez, B.H.C. Cheng, N. Bencomo, and P. Sawyer. Relaxing claims: Coping with uncertainty while evaluating assumptions at run time. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 53-69, 2012.
  113. T. Roehm, B. Bruegge, T.M. Hesse, and B. Paech. Towards identification of software improvements and specification updates by comparing monitored and specified end-user behavior. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 464-467, 2013.
  114. R. Roeller, P. Lago, and H. van Vliet. Recovering architectural assumptions. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(4): 552-573, 2006.
  115. J. Savolainen and J. Kuusela. Consistency management of product line requirements. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), Toronto, Ont, Canada, 2001.
  116. R. Seater, D. Jackson, and R. Gheyi. Requirement progression in problem frames: Deriving specifications from requirements. Requirements Engineering, 12(2): 77-102, 2007.
  117. R. Shukla, D. Carrington, and P. Strooper. Systematic operational profile development for software components. In: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Busan, South Korea, pp. 528-537, 2004.
  118. T. Srivatanakul, J.A. Clark, S. Stepney, and F. Polack. Challenging formal specifications by mutation: a CSP security example. In: Proceedings of the 10th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 340-350, 2003.
  119. A. Steingruebl and G. Peterson. Software assumptions lead to preventable errors. IEEE Security & Privacy, 7(4): 84-87, 2009.
  120. J. Sun, Y. Liu, J.S. Dong, and H.H. Wang. Specifying and verifying event-based fairness enhanced systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), Kitakyushu-City, Japan, pp. 5-24, 2008.
  121. M. Svahnberg, T. Gorschek, M. Eriksson, A. Borg, K. Sandahl, J. Borster, and A. Loconsole. Perspectives on requirements understandability - For whom does the teacher’s bell toll? In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Education and Training (REET), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 22-29, 2008.
  122. A. Tang, Y. Jin, and J. Han. A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6): 918-934, 2007.
  123. A. Tirumala,T. Crenshaw, L. Sha, G. Baliga, S. Kowshik, C. Robinson, and W. Witthawaskul. Prevention of failures due to assumptions made by software components in real-time systems. ACM SIGBED Review - Special Issue: The 2nd Workshop on High Performance, Fault Adaptive, Large Scale Embedded Real-Time Systems (FALSE-II), 2(3): 36-39, 2005.
  124. O. Tkachuk, M.B. Dwyer, and C.S. Păsăreanu. Automated environment generation for software model checking. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Montreal, Canada, pp. 116-127, 2003.
  125. T.T. Tun, R. Laney, Y. Yu, and B. Nuseibeh. Specifying software features for composition: A tool-supported approach. Computer Networks, 57(12): 2454-2464, 2013.
  126. F. Warg, B. Vedder, M. Skoglund, and A. Soderberg. SafetyADD: A tool for safety-contract based design. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), Naples, Italy, pp. 527-529, 2014.
  127. K. Welsh, P. Sawyer, and N. Bencomo. Towards requirements aware systems: Run-time resolution of design-time assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Lawrence, KS, USA, pp. 560-563, 2011.
  128. S. Winetzhammer, J. Greenyer, and M. Tichy. Integrating graph transformations and modal sequence diagrams for specifying structurally dynamic reactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on System Analysis and Modeling: Models and Reusability (SAM), Valencia, Spain, pp. 126-141, 2014.
  129. H. Winschiers and J. Fendler. Assumptions considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Usability and Internationalization (UI-HCII), Beijing, China, pp. 452-461, 2007.
  130. F. Xie and J.C. Browne. Verification of component-based software application families. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE), Västerås, Sweden, pp. 50-66, 2006.
  131. Q. Yang, E.M. Clarke, A. Komuravelli, and M. Li. Assumption generation for asynchronous systems by abstraction refinement. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS), Mountain View, CA, USA, pp. 260-276, 2012.
  132. C. Yang and P. Liang. Identifying and recording software architectural assumptions in agile development. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 308-313, 2014.
  133. S. Zschaler and A. Rashid. Aspect assumptions: A retrospective study of AspectJ developers' assumptions about aspect usage. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil, pp. 93-104, 2011.
  134. M. Zulkernine and R.E. Seviora. Assume-guarantee supervisor for concurrent systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), San Francisco, USA, pp. 151-159, 2001.
# 软件开发假设条件 # 经验软件工程 软件工程 研究 经验软件工程 系统文献映射研究 假设条件
上一篇: 2022 前端面试几个重要知识点
下一篇: ES6 - Vue 中 export 及 export default 区别

继续阅读