skip to main content
10.1145/1291151.1291190acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicfpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Experience report: a Haskell interpreter for cellML

Published:01 October 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we present our use of functional programming (FP), specifically Haskell, to provide an operational semantics for a domain-specific language, CellML, that describes mathematical models of biological processes. We analyse the benefits and shortcomings of this approach, in comparison with other semantic definitions for CellML.

It is our claim that using FP for our semantics results in a more concise and useful artifact for describing what such a model means. The use of lazy evaluation removes the need to explicitly determine an evaluation order for the model, resulting in a more elegant interpreter. Crucially, using FP enables us to prove the correctness of optimisation techniques for such models. This gives us more confidence in scientific deductions from simulation results. We compare the Python implementation of these optimisation techniques with our use of Haskell in proving their correctness.

References

  1. Jonathan Cooper and Steve McKeever. A model-driven approach to automatic conversion of physical units. Softw. Pract. Exper., 2007. doi: 10.1002/spe.828. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jonathan Cooper, Steve McKeever, and Alan Garny. On the application of partial evaluation to the optimisation of cardiac electrophysiological simulations. In PEPM '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Partial evaluation and semantics-based program manipulation, pages 12--20, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. ISBN 1-59593-196-1. doi: 10.1145/1111542.1111546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Autumn Cuellar, Poul Nielsen, Matt Halstead, David Bullivant, David Nickerson, Warren Hedley, Melanie Nelson, and Catherine Lloyd. CellML Specification 1.1, February 2006. http://www.cellml.org/specifications/cellml_1.1/ {6 Mar 2007}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Warren Hedley and Melanie Nelson. CellML Specification 1.0, August 2001. http://www.cellml.org/specifications/cellml_1.0/ {14 November 2006}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Catherine M. Lloyd, Matt D. B. Halstead, and Poul F. Nielsen. CellML: its future, present and past. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 85:433--450, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.01.004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ching-hsing Luo and Yoram Rudy. Dynamic model of the cardiac ventricular action potential - simulations of ionic currents and concentration changes. Circulation Research, 74:1071--1097, 1994. http://rudylab.wustl.edu/research/cell/methodology/.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Experience report: a Haskell interpreter for cellML

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICFP '07: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
          October 2007
          346 pages
          ISBN:9781595938152
          DOI:10.1145/1291151
          • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
            ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 42, Issue 9
            Proceedings of the ICFP '07 conference
            September 2007
            331 pages
            ISSN:0362-1340
            EISSN:1558-1160
            DOI:10.1145/1291220
            Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2007 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 October 2007

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate333of1,064submissions,31%

          Upcoming Conference

          ICFP '23

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!