BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Maurice H. ter Beek

Maurice H. ter Beek contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringCryptography and SecurityFormal Languages and Automata Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Empirical Formal Methods: Guidelines for Performing Empirical Studies on Formal Methods

Empirical studies on formal methods and tools are rare. In this paper, we provide guidelines for such studies. We mention their main ingredients and then define nine different study strategies (laboratory experiments with software and human subjects, usability testing, surveys, qualitative studies, judgment studies, case studies, systematic literature reviews, and systematic mapping studies) and discuss for each of them their crucial characteristics, the difficulties of applying them to formal methods and tools, typical threats to validity, their maturity in formal methods, pointers to external guidelines, and pointers to studies in other fields. We conclude with a number of challenges for empirical formal methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Formal Methods in Railways: a Systematic Mapping Study

Formal methods are mathematically-based techniques for the rigorous development of software-intensive systems. The railway signaling domain is a field in which formal methods have traditionally been applied, with several success stories. This article reports on a mapping study that surveys the landscape of research on applications of formal methods to the development of railway systems. Our main results are as follows: (i) we identify a total of 328 primary studies relevant to our scope published between 1989 and 2020, of which 44% published during the last 5 years and 24% involving industry; (ii) the majority of studies are evaluated through Examples (41%) and Experience Reports (38%), while full-fledged Case Studies are limited (1.5%); (iii) Model checking is the most commonly adopted technique (47%), followed by simulation (27%) and theorem proving (19.5%); (iv) the dominant languages are UML (18%) and B (15%), while frequently used tools are ProB (9%), NuSMV (8%) and UPPAAL (7%); however, a diverse landscape of languages and tools is employed; (v) the majority of systems are interlocking products (40%), followed by models of high-level control logic (27%); (vi) most of the studies focus on the Architecture (66%) and Detailed Design (45%) development phases. Based on these findings, we highlight current research gaps and expected actions. In particular, the need to focus on more empirically sound research methods, such as Case Studies and Controlled Experiments, and to lower the degree of abstraction, by applying formal methods and tools to development phases that are closer to software development. Our study contributes with an empirically based perspective on the future of research and practice in formal methods applications for railways.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Quantitative Security Risk Modeling and Analysis with RisQFLan

Domain-specific quantitative modeling and analysis approaches are fundamental in scenarios in which qualitative approaches are inappropriate or unfeasible. In this paper, we present a tool-supported approach to quantitative graph-based security risk modeling and analysis based on attack-defense trees. Our approach is based on QFLan, a successful domain-specific approach to support quantitative modeling and analysis of highly configurable systems, whose domain-specific components have been decoupled to facilitate the instantiation of the QFLan approach in the domain of graph-based security risk modeling and analysis. Our approach incorporates distinctive features from three popular kinds of attack trees, namely enhanced attack trees, capabilities-based attack trees and attack countermeasure trees, into the domain-specific modeling language. The result is a new framework, called RisQFLan, to support quantitative security risk modeling and analysis based on attack-defense diagrams. By offering either exact or statistical verification of probabilistic attack scenarios, RisQFLan constitutes a significant novel contribution to the existing toolsets in that domain. We validate our approach by highlighting the additional features offered by RisQFLan in three illustrative case studies from seminal approaches to graph-based security risk modeling analysis based on attack trees.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access