MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing Methodology for Devs Models in Cadmium

2024· article· en· W4406612639 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis Edward Winstanley, Gabriel Wainer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceModeling and simulationSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of testing in modeling and simulation software development can be a very lengthy and tedious process but is arguably one of the most important phases in the software development lifecycle. As the complexity of a simulation model increases, so does the amount of testing to thoroughly verify and validate and to achieve adequate quality assurance of the software. This paper introduces a testing framework that is used to assist in proving the validity of DEVS atomic models in the open-source simulation tool Cadmium. Furthermore, this framework utilizes the ChatGPT Application Programming Interface (API) to help lighten the workload involved in testing those DEVS atomic models. We show how to use the framework using the Cadmium simulator to show the effectiveness of the framework.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207