validation

In model-based systems engineering, low experimental data reuse efficiency and excessive redundant experiments hinder digital engineering agility. To address this, this paper proposes a case-based reasoning (CBR)-driven experimental management framework that explicitly integrates domain knowledge. The framework features structured experimental metadata modeling, digital twin–enabled scenario semantic alignment, and an interpretable similarity assessment mechanism to intelligently determine whether historical experiments can be transferred to address new verification queries. Its key innovation lies in embedding domain knowledge explicitly into both the CBR retrieval and adaptation stages, thereby enabling trustworthy cross-operating-condition and cross-configuration experimental data reuse. Evaluated on an industrial-scale vehicle energy system design case, the framework reduces redundant experiments by 37% and shortens early verification cycles by 42% on average, significantly enhancing iterative efficiency in digital engineering and advancing intelligent experimental management.

This study addresses the limitations of existing SysML verification approaches, which are often tool-dependent and restricted to performance properties, lacking support for automated validation of behavioral and interface requirements. To overcome these shortcomings, this work proposes a tool-agnostic, automated verification workflow driven by SysML test cases, integrating UML Testing Profile and behavioral diagram constructs to enable unified validation of multidimensional attributes—including behavior, timing, and state responses. The methodology was developed through a mixed-methods research strategy combining literature review and stakeholder interviews, and its efficacy was empirically validated across two independent SysML toolchains. The approach not only transcends the constraints of conventional parametric methods but also enables automatic traceability of verification results back to the original model elements.

In A/B testing, control variates and regression adjustment are widely used variance reduction techniques, yet their theoretical relationship remains unclear, their methodological frameworks are disjointed, and both have long been confined to design-driven paradigms. Method: This paper establishes, for the first time, a formal equivalence between these two approaches and proposes a novel grouped coefficient estimation method that unifies design-based and model-based estimation frameworks—enabling a paradigm shift from design-driven to model-driven inference. Contribution/Results: Theoretical analysis demonstrates improved estimation accuracy and statistical power. Empirical validation on millions of real-world experiments at ByteDance confirms efficacy: the proposed method has been fully deployed in its online experimentation platform, yielding an average 12.3% increase in statistical significance and a 19.6% improvement in detection sensitivity.

This work addresses the challenge that domain experts face in translating natural language descriptions of data quality requirements into executable analyses, a process often hindered by reliance on data engineers, resulting in inefficiency and high technical barriers. To overcome this, the paper proposes a no-code, model-driven pipeline that leverages a QPM metamodel to define domain-specific quality analysis templates. Coupled with the Constrainify toolchain, it automatically transforms natural language requirements into executable and reusable analytical logic. By integrating model-driven engineering, metamodeling, and no-code web technologies, the approach significantly reduces dependency on technical expertise, enabling efficient, reproducible, and semantically aligned data quality assessments. This advancement enhances both the accessibility and automation of data quality analysis for non-technical domain practitioners.

This study addresses the lack of a systematic framework for identifying critical input variables and conducting sensitivity analysis under uncertainty in complex simulations, particularly in military decision-making contexts. The authors propose a unified sensitivity analysis framework that integrates local and global methods—including variance-based, derivative-based, screening, and uncertainty quantification techniques—and strategically maps these approaches to specific decision objectives such as factor prioritization, fixing, variance reduction, and mapping. Innovatively, the framework introduces a “sensitivity audit” mechanism to enhance traceability of model assumptions and promote responsible model usage. By providing a structured guide for high-dimensional, complex simulation systems, this work significantly improves model interpretability, transparency, and the credibility of decisions derived from such models.

Existing approaches struggle to effectively quantify the similarity and quality between synthetic and real data in evaluating tool-augmented agents. To address this gap, this work proposes SynAE, a novel framework that establishes the first multi-axis evaluation system tailored for multi-turn tool-use scenarios. SynAE introduces four fine-grained metric categories—assessing task instructions, tool invocations, final outputs, and downstream evaluation performance—to systematically measure synthetic data across dimensions of validity, fidelity, and diversity. Integrating natural language processing, trajectory modeling, and controllable generation techniques, the framework enables a reproducible evaluation pipeline and successfully identifies several representative failure modes in synthetic data generation. Empirical results demonstrate that such multidimensional assessment is essential for enhancing the reliability of agent evaluations.

This study addresses the underexplored engineering challenges in existing machine learning evaluation frameworks, where operational issues and their root causes have lacked systematic investigation. To bridge this gap, the work formally establishes evaluation engineering as a distinct research direction within software engineering. Through an empirical analysis of 57 frameworks and a comprehensive categorization of 16,560 reported issues across a newly proposed five-stage workflow model, the study reveals that 41.4% of problems originate in the specification phase, while 61.7% of classified issues stem from missing functionality, inadequate documentation, and insufficient input validation. The findings yield a structured taxonomy of evaluation-related problems and provide empirical evidence to inform the design and improvement of robust evaluation systems.

This work addresses the problem of implementation drift in evolving distributed systems, where runtime behavior gradually deviates from the original design. To tackle this issue, the paper proposes a design conformance assessment method based on distributed tracing data. It introduces, for the first time in the domain of distributed systems, conformance checking techniques from process mining, leveraging runtime traces collected via the OpenTelemetry standard and automatically comparing them against behavioral models defined at design time to quantify their alignment. The key contribution lies in establishing persistent, monitorable conformance metrics that enable continuous, automated evaluation of deviations between system implementation and design. This approach is readily applicable to modern distributed systems widely adopting OpenTelemetry for observability.