Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2106.16160

Validation: Conceptual versus Activity Diagram Approaches

Sabah Al-Fedaghi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A conceptual model is used to support development and design within the area of systems and software modeling. The notion of validation refers to representing a domain in a model accurately and generating results using an executable model. In UML specifications, validation verifies the correctness of UML diagrams against any constraints and rules defined within the model. Currently, significant research has been conducted on generating test sets to validate that UML diagrams conform to requirements. UML activity diagrams are a specific focus of such efforts. An activity diagram is a flexible instrument for describing a system s behaviors and the internal logic of complex operations. This paper focuses on the notion of validation using activity diagrams and contrasts that process with a proposed method that involves an informal validation procedure. Accordingly, this informal validation involves comparing requirements to specifications expressed by a diagram of a modeling language called thinging machine (TM) modeling. The informal validation is a type of model checking that requires the model to be small enough for the verification to be done in a limited space or time period. In the proposed method, the model diagram is divided into subdiagrams to achieve this purpose. We claim the TM behavioral model comes with a particular dispositional structure that allows a designer to carve a model into smaller components for informal validation, which is shown through two case studies.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sabah Al-Fedaghi. 2021-06-30. Validation: Conceptual versus Activity Diagram Approaches. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.16160

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗