Analyzing and Debugging Normative Requirements via Satisfiability Checking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As software systems increasingly interact with humans in application domains such as transportation and healthcare, they raise concerns related to the social, legal, ethical, empathetic, and cultural (SLEEC) norms and values of their stakeholders. Normative non-functional requirements (N-NFRs) are used to capture these concerns by setting SLEEC-relevant boundaries for system behavior. Since N-NFRs need to be specified by multiple stakeholders with widely different, non-technical expertise (ethicists, lawyers, regulators, end users, etc.), N-NFR elicitation is very challenging. To address this challenge, we introduce N-Check, a novel tool-supported formal approach to N-NFR analysis and debugging. N-Check employs satisfiability checking to identify a broad spectrum of N-NFR well-formedness issues (WFI), such as conflicts, redundancy, restrictiveness, insufficiency, yielding diagnostics which pinpoint their causes in a user-friendly way that enables non-technical stakeholders to understand and fix them. We show the effectiveness and usability of our approach through nine case studies in which teams of ethicists, lawyers, philosophers, psychologists, safety analysts, and engineers used N-Check to analyse and debug 233 N-NFRs comprising 62 issues for the software underpinning the operation of systems ranging from assistive-care robots and tree-disease detection drones to manufacturing collaborative robots.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it