@article{WangWhiteGrimmetal.2018,
  author    = {Wang, Ming and White, Neil and Grimm, Volker and Hofman, Helen and Doley, David and Thorp, Grant and Cribb, Bronwen and Wherritt, Ella and Han, Liqi and Wilkie, John and Hanan, Jim},
  title     = {Pattern-oriented modelling as a novel way to verify and validate functional-structural plant models},
  series = {Annals of botany},
  volume    = {121},
  journal   = {Annals of botany},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0305-7364},
  doi       = {10.1093/aob/mcx187},
  pages     = {941 -- 959},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background and Aims Functional-structural plant (FSP) models have been widely used to understand the complex interactions between plant architecture and underlying developmental mechanisms. However, to obtain evidence that a model captures these mechanisms correctly, a clear distinction must be made between model outputs used for calibration and thus verification, and outputs used for validation. In pattern-oriented modelling (POM), multiple verification patterns are used as filters for rejecting unrealistic model structures and parameter combinations, while a second, independent set of patterns is used for validation. Key Results After calibration, our model simultaneously reproduced multiple observed architectural patterns. The model then successfully predicted, without further calibration, the validation patterns. The model supports the hypothesis that carbon allocation can be modelled as being dependent on current organ biomass and sink strength of each organ type, and also predicted the observed developmental timing of the leaf sink-source transition stage.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeidlichDijkmanWeske2012,
  author    = {Weidlich, Matthias and Dijkman, Remco and Weske, Mathias},
  title     = {Behaviour equivalence and compatibility of business process models with complex correspondences},
  series = {The computer journal : a publication of the British Computer Society},
  volume    = {55},
  journal   = {The computer journal : a publication of the British Computer Society},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0010-4620},
  doi       = {10.1093/comjnl/bxs014},
  pages     = {1398 -- 1418},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Once multiple models of a business process are created for different purposes or to capture different variants, verification of behaviour equivalence or compatibility is needed. Equivalence verification ensures that two business process models specify the same behaviour. Since different process models are likely to differ with respect to their assumed level of abstraction and the actions that they take into account, equivalence notions have to cope with correspondences between sets of actions and actions that exist in one process but not in the other. In this paper, we present notions of equivalence and compatibility that can handle these problems. In essence, we present a notion of equivalence that works on correspondences between sets of actions rather than single actions. We then integrate our equivalence notion with work on behaviour inheritance that copes with actions that exist in one process but not in the other, leading to notions of behaviour compatibility. Compatibility notions verify that two models have the same behaviour with respect to the actions that they have in common. As such, our contribution is a collection of behaviour equivalence and compatibility notions that are applicable in more general settings than existing ones.},
  language  = {en}
}