MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122097722 · doi:10.1109/ftcs.1996.534610

A framework for conformance testing of systems communicating through rendezvous

2002· article· en· W2122097722 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
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformance testingComputer scienceRendezvousSet (abstract data type)Fault (geology)Test caseFault coverageTest (biology)System under testFinite-state machineModel-based testingReliability engineeringSystem testingNon-regression testingTest suiteCode coverageAlgorithmProgramming languageEngineeringSoftwareMachine learningSoftware systemStandardization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A formal framework is first proposed for conformance testing of communication systems, which are modeled by labeled transition systems, in a systematic and operational approach. In this framework, test cases are limited to deterministic processes with finite behavior and state labels; testing is a finite set of experiments where every test case is parallelly composed with an implementation under test; observations are action sequences, executed during the testing, from which the test verdict is drawn directly. The fault model and fault coverage criteria are introduced to measure the effectiveness of testing. Afterwards, based on this framework, for several common conformance relations, we present corresponding functions for the state labeling of test cases and upper bounds on the necessary sizes of test suites for obtaining complete fault coverage.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.175 · 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