MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807405309 · doi:10.1145/3196883

Inferring Extended Probabilistic Finite-State Automaton Models from Software Executions

2018· article· en· W2807405309 on OpenAlexaff
Sepideh Emam, James Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic automatonProbabilistic logicAutomatonFinite-state machineReinforcement learningDecidabilityTheoretical computer scienceSoftwareInferenceDeterministic automatonFlexibility (engineering)Büchi automatonDeterministic finite automatonArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral models are useful tools in understanding how programs work. Although several inference approaches have been introduced to generate extended finite-state automatons from software execution traces, they suffer from accuracy, flexibility, and decidability issues. In this article, we apply a hybrid technique to use both reinforcement learning and stochastic modeling to generate an extended probabilistic finite state automaton from software traces. Our approach—ReHMM (Reinforcement learning-based Hidden Markov Modelling)—is able to address the problems of inflexibility and un-decidability reported in other state-of-the-art approaches. Experimental results indicate that ReHMM outperforms other inference algorithms.

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)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207