Performance by unified model analysis (PUMA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of non-functional properties of a design (such as performance, dependability, security, etc.) can be enabled by design annotations specific to the property to be evaluated. Performance properties, for instance, can be annotated on UML designs by using the "UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (SPT)". However the communication between the design description in UML and the tools used for non-functional properties evaluation requires support, particularly for performance where there are many alternative performance analysis tools that might be applied. This paper describes a tool architecture called PUMA, which provides a unified interface between different kinds of design information and different kinds of performance models, for example Markov models, stochastic Petri nets and process algebras, queues and layered queues.The paper concentrates on the creation of performance models. The unified interface of PUMA is centered on an intermediate model called Core Scenario Model (CSM), which is extracted from the annotated design model. Experience shows that CSM is also necessary for cleaning and auditing the design information, and providing default interpretations in case it is incomplete, before creating a performance model.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".