MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767601065 · doi:10.1109/icsme.2017.21

SimPact: Impact Analysis for Simulink Models

2017· article· en· W2767601065 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric J. Rapos, James R. Cordy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Reliability engineeringModel-based testingSoftware engineeringTest caseMachine learningEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing use of Simulink modeling in embedded system development, there comes a need for effective techniques and tools to support managing these models and their related artifacts. Because maintenance of models makes up such a large portion of the cost and effort of the system as a whole, it is increasingly important to ensure that the process of managing models is as simple, intuitive and efficient as possible. Part of model management comes in the form of impact analysis - the ability to determine the impact of a change to a model on related artifacts such as test cases and other models. This paper presents an approach to impact analysis for Simulink models, and a tool to implement it (SimPact). We validate our tool as an impact predictor against the maintenance history of a large set of industrial models and their tests. The results show a high level of both precision and recall in predicting actual impact of model changes on tests.

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)0.017
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207