Performance-related completions for software specifications
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
To evaluate a software specification for its performance potential, it is necessary to supply additional information, not required for functional specification. Examples range from the execution cost of operations and details of deployment, up to missing subsystems and layers. The term "completions" is used here to include all such additions, including annotations, component insertions, environment infrastructure, deployment, communication patterns, design refinements and scenario or design transformations which correspond to a given deployment style. Completions are related to the purpose of evaluation, so they are tailored to describing the performance at a suitable level of detail. Completions for evaluating other attributes such as reliability or security are also possible. The paper describes how completions are added to a specification regardless of the language used (provided that it describes the system behaviour as well as its structure), and experience with completions in Use Case Maps. General Terms Performance, Design, Reliability, Documentation. Keywords Performance prediction, software specification, generative design. 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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