MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148337883 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2008.4736159

Extending DEVS to support multiple occurrence in component-based simulation

2008· article· en· W3148337883 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2008 Winter Simulation Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Formalism (music)Modeling and simulationDiscrete event simulationDistributed computingTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new extension of the DEVS formalism that allows multiple occurrences of a given instance of a DEVS component. This paper is a follow-up to a previous short paper in which the issue of supporting a new construction called a shared component was raised, in the case of a DEVS model. In this paper, we first demonstrate, formally, that the multi-occurrence extended definition, that includes the case of shared components, is valid because any model that is built using this extended definition accepts an equivalent model built using standard DEVS. Then we recall the benefits of sharing components for modeling, and further extend this analysis to the simulation area, by investigating how shared components can help to design better simulation engines. Finally, we describe an existing implementation of a simulation software that fully supports this shared component feature, both at the modeling and simulation levels.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.152 · 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