MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490622085 · doi:10.1177/0037549716658360

Debugging Parallel DEVS

2016· article· en· W2490622085 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Van Mierlo, Yentl Van Tendeloo, Hans Vangheluwe

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebuggingDEVSComputer scienceDebuggerAlgorithmic program debuggingProgramming languageFormalism (music)UsabilityParallel computingModeling and simulationSimulationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To this day, debugging support for the DEVS formalism has been provided, at best, in an ad-hoc way. The intricacies of dealing with the interplay of different notions of (simulated) time, formalism semantics, and user input have not been thoroughly investigated. This paper presents a visual modeling, simulation, and debugging environment for Parallel DEVS, which builds on a theoretical foundation for debugging DEVS models. We take inspiration from both code debugging and the simulation world to model our environment; we transpose a set of useful code debugging concepts onto Parallel DEVS, and combine those with simulation-specific operations, such as as-fast-as-possible simulation and (scaled) real-time execution. Apart from these common debugging operations, we introduce new features to the debugging of Parallel DEVS models, such as “god events,” which can alter the model state during simulation, and reversible debugging, which allows one to go back in time. To achieve this, the PythonPDEVS simulator is deconstructed and reconstructed: the modal part of the simulator–debugger, as well as the debugging operations, are modeled using the Statecharts formalism. These models are combined, resulting in a model of the timed, reactive behavior of a debuggable simulator for Parallel DEVS. The code for the simulator is automatically synthesized from this model. To improve usability, we combine the simulator with a visual modeling environment, allowing for visual and interactive live debugging.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207