MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132387930 · doi:10.1080/03081070903029253

Synergistic verification and validation of systems and software engineering models

2009· article· en· W2132387930 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

VenueInternational Journal of General Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystems Modeling LanguageUnified Modeling LanguageSoftware engineeringVerification and validationSoftware verificationSequence diagramFormal verificationSoftwareSoftware systemProgramming languageData miningSystems engineeringSoftware constructionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a unified approach for the verification and validation of software and systems engineering design models expressed in UML 2.0 and SysML 1.0. The approach is based on three well-established techniques, namely formal analysis, programme analysis and software engineering (SwE) techniques. More precisely, our contribution consists of the synergistic combination of model checking, static analysis and SwE metrics that enables the automatic and efficient assessment of design models from static and dynamic perspectives. Additionally, we present the design and implementation of an automated computer-aided assessing framework integrating the proposed approach. Moreover, we discuss the related technical details and the underlying synergism. Finally, we illustrate the proposed approach by assessing a design case study that is composed of state machine and sequence diagrams.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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