MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263443290

Merging Features in Featured Transition Systems

2015· preprint· en· W2263443290 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne M. Atlee, Sandy Beidu, Uli Fahrenberg, Axel Legay

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceSoftware product lineFeature modelConstruct (python library)Modularity (biology)Programming languageTransition (genetics)Representation (politics)Theoretical computer scienceLine (geometry)Product (mathematics)Product lineSoftwareArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMathematicsSoftware developmentEngineeringLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Featured Transition Systems (FTSs) is a popular representation for software product lines: an entire product line is compactly represented as a single transition-machine model, in which feature-specific behaviour is guarded by feature expressions that are satisfied (or not) by the presence or absence of individual features. In previous work, FTS models were monolithic in the sense that the modeller had to construct the full FTS model of the product line in its entirety. To allow for modularity of FTS models, we propose here a language for extending an existing FTS model with new features. We demonstrate the language using a running example and present results about the language’s expressivity, commutativity of feature extensions, feature interactions, and resolution of such interactions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207