MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058547748 · doi:10.1109/icst.2012.199

Towards a Methodology for Verifying Partial Model Refinements

2012· article· en· W2058547748 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModel transformationPartial evaluationProgramming languageModel checkingSemantics (computer science)Transformation (genetics)Encoding (memory)Formal specificationTheoretical computer scienceProcess (computing)Logic modelUnified Modeling LanguageProgram transformationData modelingPartial order reductionSoftwareSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models are good at expressing information that is known but do not typically have support for representing what information a modeler does not know or does not care about at a particular stage in the software development process. Partial models address this by being able to precisely represent uncertainty about model content. In previous work, we have defined a general approach for defining partial model semantics using a first order logic encoding. In this paper, we use this FO encoding to formally define the conditions for partial model refinement in the manner of the refinement of algebraic specifications. We use this approach to verify both manual refinements and automated transformation-based refinements. We illustrate our approach using example models and transformations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.183 · 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