Towards an Explicit Bidirectional Requirement-to-Code Traceability Meta-model for the PASSI Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traceability plays an important role in the development of computing systems, specifically, the complex ones. It provides several benefits to stakeholders and developers during the different phases of the systems development life cycle, including verification & validation and maintenance. Unfortunately, there are very few works in literature addressing the concept of traceability in multi-agent systems development methodologies. Having an incremental and iterative process, the well-known PASSI (Process for Agent Societies Specification and Implementation) methodology needs an explicit traceability in order to facilitate the understanding of the MAS under development and to better manage the changes occurring during the development process. In addition, it can lead to a requirement-based verification & validation. In this paper, we propose a new traceability meta-model for the PASSI methodology by introducing explicit traceability links of functional requirements through the various phases of the development life cycle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".