MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088218866 · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.3025732

Automated Generation of Consistent Graph Models With Multiplicity Reasoning

2020· article· en· W3088218866 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristóf Marussy, Oszkár Semeráth, Dániel Varró

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalInnovációs és Technológiai MinisztériumEmberi Eroforrások Minisztériuma
KeywordsComputer scienceSolverTheoretical computer sciencePredicate abstractionGraphAbstractionProgramming languageModel checking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced tools used in model-based systems engineering (MBSE) frequently represent their models as graphs. In order to test those tools, the automated generation of well-formed (or intentionally malformed) graph models is necessitated which is often carried out by solver-based model generation techniques. In many model generation scenarios, one needs more refined control over the generated unit tests to focus on the more relevant models. Type scopes allow to precisely define the required number of newly generated elements, thus one can avoid the generation of unrealistic and highly symmetric models having only a single type of elements. In this paper, we propose a 3-valued scoped partial modeling formalism, which innovatively extends partial graph models with predicate abstraction and counter abstraction. As a result, well-formedness constraints and multiplicity requirements can be evaluated in an approximated way on incomplete (unfinished) models by using advanced graph query engines with numerical solvers (e.g., IP or LP solvers). Based on the refinement of 3-valued scoped partial models, we propose an efficient model generation algorithm that generates models that are both well-formed and satisfy the scope requirements. We show that the proposed approach scales significantly better than existing SAT-solver techniques or the original graph solver without multiplicity reasoning. We illustrate our approach in a complex design-space exploration case study of collaborating satellites introduced by researchers at NASA JPL.

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)0.010
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringSame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207