You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Abstraction is one of the fundamental concepts of software design. Consequently, the determination of an appropriate abstraction level for the multitude of artefacts that form a software system is an integral part of software engineering. However, the very nature of abstraction in software design and particularly its interrelation with equally important concepts like complexity, specificity or genericity are not fully understood today. As a step towards a better understanding of the trade-offs involved, this paper proposes a distinction of abstraction into two types that have different effects on the specificity and the complexity of artefacts. We discuss the roles of the two types of abstraction in software design and explain the interrelations between abstractness, specificity, and complexity. Furthermore, we illustrate the benefit of the proposed distinction with multiple examples and describe consequences of our findings for software design activities.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: The idea of model-based testing is to compare the I O behavior of an explicit behavior model with that of a system under test. This requires the model to be valid. If the model is a simplification of the SUT, then it is easier to check the model and use it for subsequent test case generation than to directly check the SUT. In this case, the different levels of abstraction must be bridged. Not surprisingly, experience shows that choosing the right level of abstraction is crucial to the success of model-based testing. We argue that models for specification purposes, models for test generation, and models for full code generation are likely to be different. The paper classifies and discusses different abstractions. It is intended as a step towards guidelines for those who build behavior models to the end of testing.
Prenninger and Pretschner discuss abstractions for model-based testing in [1] . Although this is not general software design the essential ideas apply. They also see abstraction as losing information that can either be automatically inserted or not. The main goal for abstraction is given as simplification because generalising abstraction is not discussed in that paper. However, it is also stressed that abstraction (especially the automatically resolvable one) tends to be highly domain-specific. We are able to show why this is the case using our abstraction types.