MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027161770 · doi:10.5220/0005236100500061

A Toolset for Simulink - Improving Software Engineering Practices in Development with Simulink

2015· article· en· W2027161770 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Pantelic, Steven Postma, Mark Lawford, Alexandre Korobkine, Bennett Mackenzie, Jeff Ong, Marc Bender

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCode refactoringSoftware engineeringModularity (biology)Program slicingSlicingSoftwareEmbedded systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper presents a set of tools that provide automatic support for application of some of the traditional soft-ware engineering practices when developing with Simulink. The tools are the: Signature Tool, Reach/Coreach Tool, Data Store Push-Down Tool, and Auto Layout Tool. The Signature Tool extracts the interface of a Simulink subsystem, identifying the subsystem’s explicit, and implicit data flow mechanisms, empowering developers to use the implicit mechanisms more effectively. The Reach/Coreach Tool identifies data and control flow dependencies in a Simulink model and uses the information for model slicing. The view of de-pendencies offered by the tool significantly eases the comprehension of large models. The dependencies can also serve as indicators of alternative designs, and facilitate more effective testing and verification. The Data Store Push-Down Tool restricts the scope of Simulink’s data stores thereby providing improved encapsulation, and increasing modularity. Finally, the Auto Layout Tool significantly decreases the manual effort develop-ers spend in achieving proper layout of models during design and refactoring, and can be used by automated refactoring and transformation tools. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207