MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980089213 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2012.23

Evaluating Reliability-Testing Usage Models

2012· article· en· W1980089213 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 Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceReliability engineeringGoodness of fitMarkov chainMarkov modelNon-regression testingSoftware qualityMarkov processData miningMachine learningStatisticsSoftwareEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing the reliability of an application usually requires a good usage model that accurately captures the likely sequences of inputs that the application will receive from the environment. Markov usage models and their variations have been found to be well suited for generating test cases that are statistically close to what the application is expected to receive when in production. In this article, we study the specific case of web applications. We present an evaluation method for estimating the accuracy of various reliability-testing usage models. The method is based on comparison between observed users' traces and traces inferred from the usage model. Our method gauges the accuracy of the reliability-testing usage model by calculating the sum of goodness-of-fit values of each traces and scaling the result between 0 and 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.182 · 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