MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966316752 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10132

Automatic Derivation of Performance Models in the Context of Model-Driven SOA

2014· dissertation· en· W2966316752 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Alhaj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel transformationUnified Modeling LanguageComputer scienceSoftware architectureFeature modelMetamodelingModel-driven architectureSoftware deploymentOASIS SOA Reference ModelSoftware engineeringSoftwareService-oriented architectureSystems engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageWeb serviceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis proposes a model transformation chain called Performance from Unified Modeling Analysis for Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) systems (PUMA4SOA), whose purpose is to automatically generate performance models from the UML software design models of SOA systems with performance annotations.The main goal of PUMA4SOA is to enable the analysis of performance properties of software systems in the early software development phases, which helps developing SOA systems that meet their performance requirements.PUMA4SOA extends PUMA, an existing transformation approach from software to performance models developed in our research group.The main differences between PUMA4SOA and PUMA are as follows: a) focus on SOA systems; b) application of Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) principles of considering first software platform-independent models (PIM) which are then transformed into platform-specific models (PSM); c) use of a Platform Completion (PC) feature model to define variability of platform characteristics; d) use of aspect-oriented modeling (AOM) techniques to specify realization of platform features; and e) systematic use of trace-links between different types of models (i.e., software, intermediate and performance models).PUMA4SOA accepts the following input models: the software platform independent model, the deployment model, the PC-feature models and a set of platform aspect models.Similar to PUMA, PUMA4SOA makes use of an intermediate model called Core Scenario Model (CSM).The model transformations chain of PUMA4SOA begins by transforming the UML PIM to a CSM PIM, which in turn is used to generate a CSM PSM using an AOM approach.The third model transformation maps the CSM platform specific model into a performance model (Layered Queuing Network in this case) which is then solved to produce the performance output results. IIIA traceability model is used in PUMA4SOA to navigate between different kinds of models (i.e., UML, CSM and LQN) in order to propagate changes of properties from one model to another and to feed back the LQN output results into the UML design model. Automation of model transformationsYes Yes Yes Yes

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207