Using a functional size measurement procedure to evaluate the quality of models in MDD environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models are key artifacts in Model-Driven Development (MDD) methods. To produce high-quality software by using MDD methods, quality assurance of models is of paramount importance. To evaluate the quality of models, defect detection is considered a suitable approach and is usually applied using reading techniques. However, these reading techniques have limitations and constraints, and new techniques are required to improve the efficiency at finding as many defects as possible. This article presents a case study that has been carried out to evaluate the use of a Functional Size Measurement (FSM) procedure in the detection of defects in models of an MDD environment. To do this, we compare the defects and the defect types found by an inspection group with the defects and the defect types found by the FSM procedure. The results indicate that the FSM is useful since it finds all the defects related to a specific defect type, it finds different defect types than an inspection group, and it finds defects related to the correctness and the consistency of the models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".