A formal analysis of requirements-based testing

The aim of requirements-based testing is to generate test cases from a set of requirements for a given system or piece of software. In this paper we propose a formal semantics for the generation of test cases from requirements by revising and extending the results presented in previous works (e.g.: [21, 20, 13]). We give a syntactic characterisation of our method, defined inductively over the syntax of LTL formulae, and prove that this characterisation is sound and complete, given some restrictions on the formulae that can be used to encode requirements. We provide various examples to show the applicability of our approach

PDVer, a tool to verify PDDL planning domains.

We present a methodology and a tool for the problem of testing and verifying that a PDDL planning domain satisfies a set of requirements, a need that arises for instance in space missions. We first review and analyse coverage conditions for requirement-based testing, and present how test cases can be derived automatically from requirements. Additionally, we show how test cases can be translated into additional planning goals. To automate this process, we introduce PDVer, an Eclipse plug-in for the automatic generation of PDDL code from requirements expressed in LTL. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach and the usability of our tool against the Rovers domain from the fifth International Planning Competition (IPC-5)

Improving the model checking of strategies under partial observability and fairness constraints

Reasoning about strategies has been a concern for several years, and many extensions of Alternating-time Temporal Logic have been proposed. One extension, ATLKirF , allows the user to reason about the strategies of the agents of a system under partial observability and unconditional fairness constraints. However, the existing model-checking algorithm for ATLKirF is inefficient when the user is only interested in the satisfaction of a formula in a small subset of states, such as the set of initial states of the system. We propose to generate fewer strategies by only focusing on partial strategies reachable from this subset of states, reducing the time needed to perform the verification. We also describe several practical improvements to further reduce the verification time and present experiments showing the practical impact of the approach

Reasoning about strategies under partial observability and fairness constraints

A number of extensions exist for Alternating-time Temporal Logic; some of these mix strategies and partial observability but, to the best of our knowledge, no work provides a unified framework for strategies, partial observability and fairness constraints. In this paper we propose AT LK^F_po, a logic mixing strategies under partial observability and epistemic properties of agents in a system with fairness constraints on states, and we provide a model checking algorithm for i

Comparing approaches for model-checking strategies under imperfect information and fairness constraints

Starting from Alternating-time Temporal Logic, many logics for reasoning about strategies in a system of agents have been proposed. Some of them consider the strategies that agents can play when they have partial information about the state of the system. ATLKirF is such a logic to reason about uniform strategies under unconditional fairness constraints. While this kind of logics has been extensively studied, practical approaches for solving their model- checking problem appeared only recently. This paper considers three approaches for model checking strategies under partial observability of the agents, applied to ATLKirF . These three approaches have been implemented in PyNuSMV, a Python library based on the state-of- the-art model checker NuSMV. Thanks to the experimental results obtained with this library and thanks to the comparison of the relative performance of the approaches, this paper provides indications and guidelines for the use of these verification techniques, showing that different approaches are needed in different situations

Rich Counter-Examples for Temporal-Epistemic Logic Model Checking

Model checking verifies that a model of a system satisfies a given property, and otherwise produces a counter-example explaining the violation. The verified properties are formally expressed in temporal logics. Some temporal logics, such as CTL, are branching: they allow to express facts about the whole computation tree of the model, rather than on each single linear computation. This branching aspect is even more critical when dealing with multi-modal logics, i.e. logics expressing facts about systems with several transition relations. A prominent example is CTLK, a logic that reasons about temporal and epistemic properties of multi-agent systems. In general, model checkers produce linear counter-examples for failed properties, composed of a single computation path of the model. But some branching properties are only poorly and partially explained by a linear counter-example. This paper proposes richer counter-example structures called tree-like annotated counter-examples (TLACEs), for properties in Action-Restricted CTL (ARCTL), an extension of CTL quantifying paths restricted in terms of actions labeling transitions of the model. These counter-examples have a branching structure that supports more complete description of property violations. Elements of these counter-examples are annotated with parts of the property to give a better understanding of their structure. Visualization and browsing of these richer counter-examples become a critical issue, as the number of branches and states can grow exponentially for deeply-nested properties. This paper formally defines the structure of TLACEs, characterizes adequate counter-examples w.r.t. models and failed properties, and gives a generation algorithm for ARCTL properties. It also illustrates the approach with examples in CTLK, using a reduction of CTLK to ARCTL. The proposed approach has been implemented, first by extending the NuSMV model checker to generate and export branching counter-examples, secondly by providing an interactive graphical interface to visualize and browse them.Comment: In Proceedings IWIGP 2012, arXiv:1202.422

Differential In Vitro Effects of Intravenous versus Oral Formulations of Silibinin on the HCV Life Cycle and Inflammation

Silymarin prevents liver disease in many experimental rodent models, and is the most popular botanical medicine consumed by patients with hepatitis C. Silibinin is a major component of silymarin, consisting of the flavonolignans silybin A and silybin B, which are insoluble in aqueous solution. A chemically modified and soluble version of silibinin, SIL, has been shown to potently reduce hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA levels in vivo when administered intravenously. Silymarin and silibinin inhibit HCV infection in cell culture by targeting multiple steps in the virus lifecycle. We tested the hepatoprotective profiles of SIL and silibinin in assays that measure antiviral and anti-inflammatory functions. Both mixtures inhibited fusion of HCV pseudoparticles (HCVpp) with fluorescent liposomes in a dose-dependent fashion. SIL inhibited 5 clinical genotype 1b isolates of NS5B RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) activity better than silibinin, with IC50 values of 40–85 µM. The enhanced activity of SIL may have been in part due to inhibition of NS5B binding to RNA templates. However, inhibition of the RdRps by both mixtures plateaued at 43–73%, suggesting that the products are poor overall inhibitors of RdRp. Silibinin did not inhibit HCV replication in subgenomic genotype 1b or 2a replicon cell lines, but it did inhibit JFH-1 infection. In contrast, SIL inhibited 1b but not 2a subgenomic replicons and also inhibited JFH-1 infection. Both mixtures inhibited production of progeny virus particles. Silibinin but not SIL inhibited NF-κB- and IFN-B-dependent transcription in Huh7 cells. However, both mixtures inhibited T cell proliferation to similar degrees. These data underscore the differences and similarities between the intravenous and oral formulations of silibinin, which could influence the clinical effects of this mixture on patients with chronic liver diseases

Strategies to inhibit tumour associated integrin receptors: rationale for dual and multi-antagonists

YesThe integrins are a family of 24 heterodimeric transmembrane cell surface receptors. Involvement in cell attachment to the extracellular matrix, motility, and proliferation identifies integrins as therapeutic targets in cancer and associated conditions; thrombosis, angiogenesis and osteoporosis. The most reported strategy for drug development is synthesis of an agent that is highly selective for a single integrin receptor. However, the ability of cancer cells to change their integrin repertoire in response to drug treatment renders this approach vulnerable to the development of resistance and paradoxical promotion of tumor growth. Here, we review progress towards development of antagonists targeting two or more members of the RGD-binding integrins, notably αvβ3, αvβ5, αvβ6, αvβ8, α5β1, and αIIbβ3, as anticancer therapeutics