Evaluation of Goal Models in Reuse Hierarchies with Delayed Decisions
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
Trade-off analysis through goal model evaluation has been a valuable tool for requirements elicitation and analysis. This is also true in the context of reuse. When goal models are used to describe reusable artifacts and to represent the impacts of reusable artifacts on high-level goals and qualities, they can guide the selection of reusable artifacts to build reuse hierarchies. In previous work, we introduced the use of relative contribution values for reusable goal models, while considering constraints imposed by other modeling notations. In this paper, we expand the result of goal model evaluation from the typical single satisfaction value to a range of values that are still possible based on the current task selections. In the context of reuse hierarchies, we call the remaining task selections delayed decisions because they are postponed to a higher level in the reuse hierarchy when more is known about the system under development. The extended algorithm takes into account the delayed decisions and evaluates the best and worst possible results that can be obtained with the task selections that have been made in the entire reuse hierarchy. The distinct levels in the reuse hierarchy are leveraged to manage the computational complexity of this reuse hierarchy-wide evaluation. A proof-of-concept implementation of the novel evaluation algorithm is presented in the concern-oriented software design modeling tool TouchCORE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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