MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Verification of SPL Feature Model by using Bayesian Network

2016· article· en· W2289505320 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

VenueIndian Journal of Science and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Feature modelComputer scienceBayesian networkData miningSoftware product lineSoftwareDynamic Bayesian networkArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityTree (set theory)Cardinality (data modeling)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningSoftware developmentMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature Tree represents all the features along with their relationship of a Software Product Line. Any defect in feature model can diminish the benefits of product line approach. Hence, the analysis of feature model plays a key role towards the success of any Software Product Line. This paper presents various analysis rules for cardinality-based feature model of both dead and false optional features. These rules are then verified by using Bayesian Network Based inference mechanism. Such verification not only confirms the analysis rules of the feature trees but also ensures the applicability of probabilistic information into the feature trees.Keywords: Bayesian Network, Dead Feature, False Optional Feature, Feature Analysis, Software Product Line

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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