MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896875458 · doi:10.1109/re.2018.00033

Morse: Reducing the Feature Interaction Explosion Problem using Subject Matter Knowledge as Abstract Requirements

2018· article· en· W2896875458 on OpenAlexaff
Laure Millet, Nancy A. Day, Jeffrey J. Joyce

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsCritical Systems Labs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Risk analysis (engineering)Simple (philosophy)Subject-matter expertPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionData scienceExpert systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feature interaction problem appears in many different kinds of complex systems, especially systems whose elements are created or maintained by separate entities - for example, a modern automobile that incorporates electronic systems produced by different suppliers. Cross-cutting concerns, such as safety and security, require a comprehensive analysis of the possible interactions. However, there is a combinatorial explosion in the number of feature combinations to be considered. Our work approaches the feature interaction problem from a novel point of view: we seek to use the abstract subject matter knowledge of domain experts to deduce why some features will NOT interact, rather than trying to discover or resolve the interactions. In this paper, we present a method that can automatically reduce the required number of combinations and situations that have to be evaluated or resolved for feature interactions. Our tool, called Morse, rules out feature combinations that cannot have interactions based on traceable deductions from relatively simple abstract requirements that capture relevant subject matter knowledge. Our method is useful as a means of focusing attention on particular situations where more detailed functional requirements may be needed to avoid unacceptable risk arising from unintended interactions between features. relatively simple abstract requirements that capture relevant subject matter knowledge. Our method is useful as a means of focusing attention on particular situations where more detailed functional requirements may be needed to avoid unacceptable risk arising from unintended interactions between features.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207