MuMonDE: A framework for evaluating model clone detectors using model mutation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Model‐driven engineering is an increasingly prevalent approach in software engineering where models are the primary artifacts throughout a project's life cycle. A growing form of analysis and quality assurance in these projects is model clone detection, which identifies similar model elements. As model clone detection research and tools emerge, methods must be established to assess model clone detectors and techniques. In this paper, we describe the MuMonDE framework, which researchers and practitioners can use to evaluate model clone detectors using mutation analysis on the models each detector is geared towards. MuMonDE applies mutation testing in a novel way by randomly mutating model elements within existing projects to emulate various types of clones that can exist within that domain. It consists of 2 main phases. The mutation phase involves determining the mutation targets, selecting the appropriate mutation operations, and injecting mutants. The second phase, evaluation, involves detecting model clones, preprocessing clone reports, analyzing those reports to calculate recall and precision, and visualizing the data. We introduce MuMonDE by describing each phase in detail. We present our experiences and examples in successfully developing a MuMonDE implementation capable of evaluating Simulink model clone detectors. We validate MuMonDE by demonstrating its ability to answer evaluation questions and provide insights based on the data it generates. With this research using mutation analysis, our goal is to improve model clone detection and its analytical capabilities, thus improving model‐driven engineering as a whole.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".