MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118180631 · doi:10.1109/apsec.1995.496953

From scenarios to timed automata: building specifications from users requirements

2002· article· en· W2118180631 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
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomatonFormalism (music)Semantics (computer science)Software requirements specificationRequirements engineeringFormal specificationSoftware engineeringSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware developmentTheoretical computer scienceSoftware design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scenarios as partial behavior description, are used more and more to represent users requirements, and to conduct software engineering. The paper examines automatic generation of specifications from requirements. This is a crucial step when accuracy is desired in the requirement engineering process. Automatic construction of specifications from scenarios reduces to the merging of partial behaviors into global specifications, such that these specifications can reproduce them. The paper presents an incremental algorithm that synthesizes timed automata from scenarios with timing constraints. The algorithm is based on a formalism developed for scenarios. It uses operations semantics, and a mapping between concepts of scenarios, and those of the theory of timed automata.

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)0.001
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.155 · 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