MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019243921 · doi:10.1002/nav.20194

On optimality of one‐bug‐look‐ahead policies for a software testing model

2007· article· en· W2019243921 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

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterexampleMonotonic functionSoftwareComputer scienceSample (material)Sense (electronics)Mathematical optimizationMathematical economicsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The optimality of the One‐Bug‐Look‐Ahead (OLA) software release policy proposed by Morali and Soyer ( Nav Res Logist 50 (2003), 88–104 ) is re‐examined in this paper. A counterexample is constructed to show that OLA is not optimal in general. The optimal stopping approach is then called upon to prove that OLA possesses weaker sense of optimality under conditional monotonicity and the strong sense of optimality holds under a more restrictive sample‐wise monotonicity condition. The NTDS data are analyzed for illustration, and OLA is shown to be robust with respect to model parameters. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2007.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.103 · 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