MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966387664 · doi:10.1145/1071021.1071031

From UML to LQN by XML algebra-based model transformations

2005· article· en· W1966387664 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon P. Gu, Dorina C. Petriu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageModel transformationApplications of UMLProgramming languageRotation formalisms in three dimensionsUML toolGraph rewritingObject Constraint LanguageXMLTheoretical computer scienceSoftware engineeringData miningSoftwareGraphArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The change of focus from code to models promoted by OMG's Model Driven Development raises the need for verification of non-functional characteristics of UML models. such as performance, reliability, scalability, security, etc. Many modeling formalisms, techniques and tools have been developed over the years for the analysis of different non-functional characteristics. The challenge is not to reinvent new analysis methods for UML models, but to bridge the gap between UML-based software development tools and different kinds of existing analysis tools. Traditionally, the analysis models were built "by hand". However, a new trend is starting to emerge, that involves the automatic transformation of UML models (annotated with extra information) into various kinds of analysis models. This paper proposes a transformation method of an annotated UML model into a performance model. The mapping between the input model and the output model is defined at a higher level of abstraction based on graph transformation concepts, whereas the implementation of the transformation rules and algorithm uses lower-level XML trees manipulations techniques, such as XML algebra. The target performance model used as an example in this paper is the Layered Queueing Network (LQN); however, the transformation approach can be easily tailored to other performance modelling formalisms.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207