Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper extends the concept of disabling essences to analyze conflicts between graph transformation rules, specifically addressing rules with arbitrarily nested application conditions. It introduces symbolic conflict essences, derived from disabling essences, to precisely capture interactions between rule pairs. The work proves that parallel dependency between transformations is equivalent to the embeddability of a symbolic conflict essence, linking these essences to initial conflicts.
Pinpointing minimal "conflict essences" reveals precisely how graph transformation rules interfere, even with complex nested conditions.
Conflict and dependency analysis is an important static analysis tool that provides an overview of the potential interactions of (graph) transformation rules. This analysis is based on critical pairs and initial conflicts, which represent conflicting transformations in a minimal context. However, the crucial information about a conflicting transformation pair is contained in much smaller structures, called disabling/conflict essences in existing research. Recently, we introduced disabling essences for rules with application conditions which contain the information on how an application condition can be violated by another rule. In this paper, we extend the notion of disabling essences to support not only application conditions in Alternating Quantifier Normal Form, but also arbitrary nested conditions. We introduce (symbolic) conflict essences that are constructed from disabling essences and which capture the interaction between two rules. We show that a transformation pair is parallel dependent if and only if a symbolic conflict essence can be embedded into it and relate symbolic conflict essences to initial conflicts for transformation rules with application conditions. We present our results for adhesive HLR categories, which includes several types of graph-like structures.
