MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974536975 · doi:10.1145/1639622.1639623

Run-time conformance checking of mobile and distributed systems using executable models

2009· article· en· W1974536975 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
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExecutableComputer scienceConformance testingUnified Modeling LanguageDistributed computingMobile deviceProgramming languageOperating systemSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an approach for conformance testing of mobile and distributed systems. The approach is based on kiltera --- a novel, high-level language supporting the description and execution of models of concurrent, mobile, distributed, and timed computation. In our approach, a kiltera model of the system is constructed from a high-level model which describes system behavior using, e.g., a suitable UML profile. Check points are identified in the implementation under test (IUT) and the kiltera model and both are instrumented appropriately at these check points. During execution, relevant information flows from the IUT to the kiltera model which signals any non-conformance detected. Unique features of our approach include the support for mobility, distribution, time, dynamic creation and deletion of agents, and distributed monitoring. We describe the approach and a prototype implementation using a running example for illustration. Results of first, preliminary experiments are reported.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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