The DEVStone Metric: Performance Analysis of DEVS Simulation Engines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DEVStone benchmark allows us to evaluate the performance of discrete-event simulators based on the Discrete Event System (DEVS) formalism. It provides model sets with different characteristics, enabling the analysis of specific issues of simulation engines. However, this heterogeneity hinders the comparison of the results among studies, as the results obtained on each research work depend on the chosen subset of DEVStone models. We define the DEVStone metric based on the DEVStone synthetic benchmark and provide a mechanism for specifying objective ratings for DEVS-based simulators. This metric corresponds to the average number of times that a simulator can execute a selection of 12 DEVStone models in 1 minute. The variety of the chosen models ensures that we measure different particularities provided by DEVStone. The proposed metric allows us to compare various simulators and to assess the impact of new features on their performance. We use the DEVStone metric to compare some popular DEVS-based simulators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it