Optimal Software Development: A Control Theoretic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of optimally allocating effort between software construction and debugging. As construction proceeds, new errors are introduced into the system. The objective is to deliver a system of the highest possible quality (fewest number of errors) subject to the constraint that N system modules are constructed in a specified duration T. If errors are not corrected during construction, then further construction can produce errors at a faster rate. To curb the growth of errors, some of the effort must be taken away from construction and assigned to testing and debugging. A key finding of this model is that the practice of alternating between pure construction and pure debugging is suboptimal. Instead, it is desirable to concurrently construct and debug the system. We extend the above model to integrate decisions traditionally considered “external” such as the time to release the product to the market with those that are typically treated as “internal” such as the division of effort between construction and debugging. Results show that integrating these decisions can yield significant reduction in the overall cost. Also, when competitive forces are strong, it may be better to release a product early (with more errors) than late (with fewer errors). Thus, underestimating the cost of errors in the product may be better than overestimating the cost.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".