MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203192334 · doi:10.1109/tase52547.2021.00015

A Formal Engineering Approach to Product Family Modeling

2021· article· en· W3203192334 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature modelComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Code refactoringSoftware engineeringSoftware product lineFormal specificationProcess (computing)Product (mathematics)Formal methodsSet (abstract data type)SoftwareProgramming languageSoftware developmentMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software Product Line deals with the development of product families for diverse market needs and includes feature model to describe the structure of the included products. Since feature model is lack of detailed specification of individual features, some behavior-oriented methods have been proposed to analyze the inner functionalities of features. But how these functions relate to the feature model remains a problem and a systematic approach is still needed to support the whole process of product family modeling. This paper provides a formal engineering approach to modeling product family where feature model evolves as individual features are formalized through informal, semi-formal and formal stages. For each stage, a set of evolvement rules are given to guide the refactoring of the feature model which will then serve as a basis for formal specifications of individual features. Such an iterative process repeats until achieving a feature model with consistent feature specifications. A case study is described to illustrate the effectiveness of our approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.202 · 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