MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505131313 · doi:10.5220/0004311102650277

A Survey of Model Comparison Approaches and Applications

2013· article· en· W1505131313 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware versioningGeneralityComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Variance (accounting)Similarity (geometry)Data modelingSoftware engineeringData miningIndustrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceSoftwareProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This survey paper presents the current state of model comparison as it applies to Model-Driven Engineering. We look specifically at how model matching is accomplished, the application of the approaches, and the types of models that approaches are intended to work with. Our paper also indicates future trends and directions. We find that many of the latest model comparison techniques are geared towards facilitating arbitrary meta models and use similarity-based matching. Thus far, model versioning is the most prevalent application of model comparison. Recently, however, work on comparison for versioning has begun to stagnate, giving way to other applications. Lastly, there is wide variance among the tools in the amount of user effort required to perform model comparison, as some require more effort to facilitate more generality and expressive power. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it