MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988506401 · doi:10.1145/2089116.2089119

Weak Alphabet Merging of Partial Behavior Models

2012· article· en· W1988506401 on OpenAlexaff
Dario Fischbein, Nicolás D’Ippolito, Greg Brunet, Marsha Chećhik, Sebastián Uchitel

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceViewpointsAlphabetProperty (philosophy)Process (computing)Algebraic propertiesTheoretical computer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Extension (predicate logic)Programming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behavior is a complex and costly task, which can be mitigated by the construction of partial behavior models, providing early feedback and subsequently elaborating them iteratively. However, how should partial behavior models with different viewpoints covering different aspects of behavior be composed? How should partial models of component instances of the same type be put together? In this article, we propose model merging of modal transition systems (MTSs) as a solution to these questions. MTS models are a natural extension of labelled transition systems that support explicit modeling of what is currently unknown about system behavior. We formally define model merging based on weak alphabet refinement, which guarantees property preservation, and show that merging consistent models is a process that should result in a minimal common weak alphabet refinement (MCR). In this article, we provide theoretical results and algorithms that support such a process. Finally, because in practice MTS merging is likely to be combined with other operations over MTSs such as parallel composition, we also study the algebraic properties of merging and apply these, together with the algorithms that support MTS merging, in a case study.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207