MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043308735 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10596

UML Model to Fault Tree Model Transformation for Dependability Analysis

2014· dissertation· en· W3043308735 on OpenAlexaff
Zhao Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependabilityFault tree analysisSequence diagramComputer scienceUnified Modeling LanguageModel transformationTransformation (genetics)Programming languageApplications of UMLClass diagramSystems Modeling LanguageActivity diagramSoftware engineeringTheoretical computer scienceReliability engineeringSoftwareArtificial intelligenceEngineeringConsistency (knowledge bases)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis proposes a model transformation to automatically generate Fault Tree models from UML models annotated with dependability annotations. Fault tree analysis is a top down deductive failure analysis model using both qualitative and quantitative analysis of undesired events of a system. It is used in safety and reliability engineering. The main purpose of this work is to use a specialized model transformation language to transform UML Sequence Diagrams, along with UseCase Diagrams and Composite Structure Diagrams (extended with MARTE/DAM stereotypes) into Fault Tree Models. The trans- formation language used in this study is ATL (ATL Transformation Language). The transformation covers both hardware software, as well as their allocation within the system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Reliability and Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207