MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782704337

Supporting Model Refinement with Equivalence Checking in the Context of Model-Driven Engineering with UML-RT

2017· preprint· en· W2782704337 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

VenueOpen Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (University of Toulouse) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)
KeywordsComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageEquivalence (formal languages)Model checkingContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Programming languageSoftware engineeringTheoretical computer scienceSoftware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through model refinement, system developers canbuild a system model incrementally and gradually unveil thedetails of the system. While the process of incrementally buildinga model can help developers master the complexity of the system,even small modifications to a model may lead to a loss of initiallypresent desirable behavior and properties. Furthermore, theimpact of such changes on the model behavior becomes difficultto detect once the model size increases. We propose a formalapproach to compare pairs of models in which the second modelis the result of an incremental modification of the first. The resultshave shown that the approach helps verify that the modificationis behavior preserving, i.e., that it is a refinement in the sense ofthe formal methods literature.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0120.009
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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