Requirements-Driven Slicing of Simulink Models using LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model slicing is a useful technique for identifying a subset of a larger model that is relevant to fulfilling a given requirement. Notable applications of slicing include reducing inspection effort when checking design adequacy to meet requirements of interest and when conducting change impact analysis. In this paper, we present a method based on large language models (LLMs) for extracting model slices from graphical Simulink models. Our approach converts a Simulink model into a textual representation, uses an LLM to identify the necessary Simulink blocks for satisfying a specific requirement, and constructs a sound model slice that incorporates the blocks identified by the LLM. We explore how different levels of granularity (verbosity) in transforming Simulink models into textual representations, as well as the strategy used to prompt the LLM, impact the accuracy of the generated slices. Our preliminary findings suggest that prompts created by textual representations that retain the syntax and semantics of Simulink blocks while omitting visual rendering information of Simulink models yield the most accurate slices. Furthermore, the chain-of-thought and zero-shot prompting strategies result in the largest number of accurate model slices produced by 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".