Proceedings of the 13 ESSLLI Student Session - Multiple Choices ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Student Session 46
DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING WITH ENHANCED STATIC CONSTRAINTS James Burton University of Brighton Abstract. This paper reports on ongoing work to create a proof-carrying Domain Specific Embedded Language (DSEL) for diagrammatic logics, using Euler diagrams as a case study. The DSEL is written in Haskell with type system extensions that allow the exploitation of a combination of ideas from Constructive Type Theory. These extensions offer an increase in expressiveness over Hindley-Milner type systems and have been used for program verification. We use these extensions to create enhanced static constraints to enforce invariants on diagrams and transformations (inference rules). Our work is at an early stage and we describe the goals and challenges ahead. The major goal is to create a DSEL for generalized constraint diagrams, a visual logic expressive enough to be useful for modelling software, and to extract the types of the resulting diagrams for use as software artefacts. 1 Introduction Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Student Session A great deal of effort is spent on attempts to increase software reliability and the productivity of programmers, by both the research community and the software industry. Of the techniques employed (development methodologies, systematic modelling, automated testing), formal methods have been little used outside of the most safety-critical sectors where they are used to verify semantic properties of software and to assure desired runtime conditions. We believe the benefits of their more widespread use could be great, but the impact of factors inhibiting adoption needs to be reduced. These factors may include the fact that existing techniques are seen as difficult to use, time-consuming and requiring specialised expertise. There is, therefore, a need for more “lightweight” formal methods which are accessible to programmers with a minimum of specialised training and which fit in seamlessly with the tools they employ. Sheard has said that enabling programmers to make statements about semantic properties of the code they write directly, rather than turning to external tools with high barriers to entry (likely to be written by, and for, mathematicians) will make it more likely that they do so — in short, that the semantic gap between the tools for programming and those for formal reasoning is damaging to the cause of both (Sheard, 2004). At the same time as the Unified Modelling Language (UML) was adopted as a standard visual language for modelling software in the 1990s, breakthroughs occured in the use of diagrams as visual logics (Shin, 1994; Hammer, 1995). Shin proved soundness and completeness results for the so-called Venn-II reasoning system, equivalent in expressive power to Monadic First Order Logic, and research began into a number of diagrammatic reasoning systems varying in notation and expressive power. The connection between the new formalised diagrams and those used in software modelling was quickly made. Although the UML works well to describe the architecture of a system it is not always expressive enough to capture all invariants we might wish to enforce, a fact which led to the development of the (non-graphical) Object Constraint Language (OCL). Kent proposed constraint diagrams as a purely diagrammatic alternative to the OCL, more appropriately 47
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Stu
Page 3 and 4: Contents Preface . . . . . . . . .
Page 5 and 6: Preface Proceedings of the 13 th ES
Page 9 and 10: mechanism of the encoded function.
Page 13 and 14: The table below presents experiment
Page 17 and 18: SIMULATING SPOKEN DIALOGUE WITH A F
Page 19 and 20: 21 Speech Generation Speech generat
Page 31 and 32: We now state our update semantics f
Page 33 and 34: 3 Comparison With a Partition Seman
Page 35 and 36: We take this objection seriously, a
Page 37 and 38: BARE PREDICATION AND KINDS ∗ Bert
Page 39 and 40: The reason why the b-variants are o
Page 41 and 42: 2006)). The second is that nouns re
Page 43 and 44: 43 Non-bare predication and non-uni
Page 45: References Proceedings of the 13 th
Page 51 and 52: previously. Proceedings of the 13 t
Page 53 and 54: type theory of Euler diagrams based
Page 55 and 56: software (Stapleton and Delaney, 20
Page 57 and 58: FICTIONAL CONTINGENCIES Gemma Celes
Page 63 and 64: of as the individuals that these fi
Page 75 and 76: TOWARDS A NEW CHARACTERISATION OF C
Page 77 and 78: The following paper continues this
Page 81 and 82: only one increasing chain completel
Page 83 and 84: the minimal step width seems to be
Page 87 and 88: etrieved in order to check it again
Page 89 and 90: Results The percentages of correct
Page 91 and 92: The complexity of relative clauses
Page 93 and 94: References Proceedings of the 13 th
Page 95 and 96: A SALIENCE-DRIVEN APPROACH TO SPEEC
Page 97 and 98:
Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Stu
Page 99 and 100:
2. the linguistic salience or “re
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
where the expectations provided by
Page 105 and 106:
A LOGIC WITH A CONDITIONAL PROBABIL
Page 107 and 108:
• v : F orC × W −→ {0, 1} is
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Lemma 4 M ∗ is a measurable model
Page 113 and 114:
is a tautology. Now we can equivale
Page 115 and 116:
A PROOF-THEORETIC APPROACH TO FRENC
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
References Abeillé, A., Godard, D.
Page 125 and 126:
INFINITE GAMES FROM AN INTUITIONIST
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
6 Further problems Proceedings of t
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
pointers to the text, containing th
Page 139 and 140:
example in a comparatively short te
Page 141 and 142:
Such an example is: Constant modifi
Page 143 and 144:
WORD SPACE MODELS OF SEMANTIC SIMIL
Page 145 and 146:
tween semantic similarity and seman
Page 147 and 148:
wu & palmer 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
frequency F−score 0 100 200 300 4
Page 153 and 154:
EXAMINING THE NOTICING FUNCTION OF
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
effects of input flood and individu
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
CDIPROVER3: A TOOL FOR PROVING DERI
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Example 8. Consider the TRS given i
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
THE RANK(S) OF A TOTALLY LEXICALIST
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
EXPRESSING CONJUNCTIVE AND AGGREGAT
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
(Rule) (Semantic Action) Qwh → In
Page 191 and 192:
(⇐) We will prove, by induction o
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
1 Introduction INTERROGATION IN DYN
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
to hold for questions to be felicit
Page 201 and 202:
5 Further research One goal for a s
Page 203 and 204:
THE SEMANTIC CHANGE OF THE FRENCH -
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
6 Conclusion In this paper, I inves
Page 213 and 214:
ADVERSARY IMPLICATURES ∗ Grégoir
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
2.2.1 The derivation of Q-Implicatu
Page 221 and 222:
of the first, the relation of Contr
Page 223 and 224:
List of authors Martin Avanzini Mar
show all

Proceedings of the 13 ESSLLI Student Session - Multiple Choices ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?