MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387701050 · doi:10.1145/3617946.3617951

Towards a Research Agenda for Understanding and Managing Uncertainty in Self-Adaptive Systems

2023· article· en· W4387701050 on OpenAlexaff
Danny Weyns, Radu Călinescu, Raffaela Mirandola, Kenji Tei, Maribel Acosta, Nelly Bencomo, Amel Bennaceur, Nicolas Boltz, Tomáš Bureš, Javier Cámara, Ada Diaconescu, Gregor Engels, Simos Gerasimou, Ilias Gerostathopoulos, Sinem Getir Yaman, Vincenzo Grassi, Sebastian Hahner, Paola Inverardi, Dimitri Van Landuyt, Rogério de Lemos, Emmanuel Letier, Marin Litoiu, Lina Marsso, Angelika Musil, Juergen Musil, Genaína Nunes Rodrigues, Diego Pérez-Palacín, Federico Quin, Patrizia Scandurra, Antonio Vallecillo, Andrea Zisman

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersChristian Doppler ForschungsgesellschaftBundesministerium für Digitalisierung und WirtschaftsstandortÖsterreichische Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung
KeywordsComputer scienceAgile software developmentHuman systems engineeringUncertainty analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Adaptive systemComplex adaptive systemKey (lock)Management scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSimulationComputer securitySoftware engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite considerable research efforts on handling uncertainty in self-adaptive systems, a comprehensive understanding of the precise nature of uncertainty is still lacking. This paper summarises the findings of the 2023 Bertinoro Seminar on Uncertainty in Self- Adaptive Systems, which aimed at thoroughly investigating the notion of uncertainty, and outlining open challenges associated with its handling in self-adaptive systems. The seminar discussions were centered around five core topics: (1) agile end-toend handling of uncertainties in goal-oriented self-adaptive systems, (2) managing uncertainty risks for self-adaptive systems, (3) uncertainty propagation and interaction, (4) uncertainty in self-adaptive machine learning systems, and (5) human empowerment under uncertainty. Building on the insights from these discussions, we propose a research agenda listing key open challenges, and a possible way forward for addressing them in the coming years.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.038
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207