Relationship-based change propagation: A case study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software development is an evolutionary process. Requirements of a system are often incomplete or inconsistent, and hence need to be extended or modified over time. Customers may demand new services or goals that often lead to changes in the design and implementation of the system. These changes are typically very expensive. Even if only local modifications are needed, manually applying them is time-consuming and and error-prone. Thus, it is essential to assist users in propagating changes across requirements, design, and implementation artifacts. In this paper, we take a model-based approach and provide an automated algorithm for propagating changes between requirements and design models. The key feature of our work is explicating relationships between models at the requirements and design levels. We provide conditions for checking validity of these relationships both syntactically and semantically. We show how our algorithm utilizes the relationships between models at different levels to localize the regions that should be modified. We use the IBM Trade 6 case study to demonstrate our approach.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it