MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

9.2.2 UML‐PVS Requirement Specification and Verification

2004· article· en· W2065519647 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

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageProgramming languageFormal specificationUML toolOracleB-MethodApplications of UMLFormal methodsModel checkingSoftware engineeringSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we present a specification‐based testing approach in which, first, the specification is validated by verifying important system properties using model checking, consequently increasing our confidence in it. Then, suitable test cases are generated for a system implementation using the previous specification as test oracle. The specification is produced using the UML, which is based on a graphical notation that is easy to learn and use. The formal model used during the model checking activities is based on a formal semantic that we have defined for a subset of the UML. We apply, in this paper, the approach to the case study of a safety‐critical software; namely, a temperature regulator software component that is used in various highly dependable systems.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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