Partial Behavioural Models for Requirements and Early Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we first motivate and summarize our recent work on creation, management, and specifically merging of partial be- havioural models, expressed as model transition systems. We then ad- dress two issues coming out of MMOSS discussions: alphabet embedding as an alternative to common observational refinement and minimum re- finement steps. We show that the former is not possible, and discuss informally how to define the latter. 1 Introduction and Goals of the Project Event-based models such as Labeled Transition Systems (LTSs) (9) have been shown to be successful for modeling and reasoning about the behavior of software systems at the architectural level. These behavior models provide a basis for a wide range of successful automated analysis techniques, such as model-checking, animation, and simulation. However, the adoption of behavior modeling and analysis technology by practitioners has been slow. Partly, this is due to the complexity of building behavioral models in the first place - behavior modeling remains a difficult, labor-intensive task that requires considerable expertise. In addition, and per- haps more importantly, the benefits of the analysis appear only at the end of a costly process of constructing a comprehensive behavior model. The reason for the latter is that traditional behavior models are required to be complete descriptions of the system behavior up to some level of abstraction, i.e., the transition system is assumed to completely describe the system behavior with respect to a fixed alphabet of actions. This completeness assumption is limit- ing in the context of software development process best practices which include iterative development, adoption of use-case and scenario-based techniques and viewpoint- or stakeholder-based analysis; practices which require modeling and analysis in the presence of partial information about system behavior. Our aim is to address the limitations of existing behavior modeling ap- proaches by shifting the focus from traditional behavior models to partial be- havior models - models that are capable of distinguishing known behavior (both
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".