sadat2307/MSciNLI huggingface dataset:
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: A Simple Edit-Time Metaobject Protocol Controlling the Display of Metadata in Programs Andrew D. Eisenberg Gregor Kiczales Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia {ade, gregor}@cs.ubc.ca Abstract I will present a prototype tool that enables Java annotations to serve as an extension point for making programs more visually expressive.
Sentence 2: programmers can view and edit code in a way that more closely resembles the intention of the code, rather than the raw text.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Let us suppose that there is an algorithm A that builds a failure detector of the class OSx from a failure detector of the class fy .
Sentence 2: inany runwhere f= t-y, it follows from O1 that A can rely on fy only to know that the number of failures is = t- y.A can build a failure detector of the class OSx in a system ASn,t-y[Ø].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: We know at runtime (by looking into the virtual function table s open-method table (see §4) which branch of a D object (either B or C) is on.
Sentence 2: we can .ll our dispatch table appropri­ately; that is, for each combination of types, there is a unique best match according to the usual C++ rules: A B C D/B D/C A AA AA AA AA AA B AA BB BC BB BC C AA CB CC CB CC D/B AA BB BC BB BC D/C AA CB CC CB CC This depicts the dispatch table for the repeated-inheritance hierar­chy in §3.2 and the set of overriders above.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: However, the resulting constraints can still be solved e.ciently, for example, via a constraint solving frame­work such as BANE [1] or BANSHEE [13].
Sentence 2: the Prolog encoding of the original syntax-directed type rules is quite .exible  in addition to functioning as an e.cient type checker, it can also (via appropriate partial­evaluation) yield a constraint-generator for both base type inference and full type inference.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: If some S j falls into the second case above, then the time­stamp it returns (or a higher one returned by another correct server) satis.es the condition in lines 712 713 and so the client will sub­ sequently read at this timestamp (line 720) if a non-NULL block is not .rst returned from c_.nd_block (line 721).
Sentence 2: for the client to never return a block in a c_read, correct servers must continuously return increasing timestamps in response to s_rpc_read calls.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Because the main purpose of the N-Tree is to reduce communi­cation and propagate events, leaves in the N-Tree are subdivided wheneverthe populationofaleafexceedsagiven threshold t. This thresholdisgame speci.cand dependsonthe communicationand latencyrequirementsofgame.Forexample,a .rst-person shooter typegame, whichhasahigh update rateandlow latencyrequire­ments, might have a lower threshold t to make sure that players are interacting with as few other players as possible tokeep from overwhelming their Internet connections.
Sentence 2: when the leader of a leaf discovers that the population of the node has exceeded the threshold, the leaf is subdivided into N children and the peers are placed into the appropriate leaves.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: To distinguish between base and aspect parts of the monadic stack, we .rst have to introduce a modi.ed AOT monad transformer that manages a splitting of the monadic stack into a monad transformer t that collects effects available to aspect com­putations and a monad m that collects effects available to the base computation.
Sentence 2: we de.ne the data type NIAOT as follows (NI stands for non-interference): data NIAOT t m a = NIAOT {runNI :: AspectEnv (NIAOT t m) !
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Examining evidences for an individual C&#38;A requirement does not guarantee overall system dependability; unless, these evidences are put into the context of the target system operational environment along with evidences gathered for other relevant C&#38;A requirements.
Sentence 2: in the operational context of the target system, we have applied Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) [10] to represent and systematically reason about arbitrary relationships between C&#38;A requirements and risk factors modeled in the PDO [9].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: The rank of a sample is always equal to the number of variables minus the number of linearly independent relationships that the sample satis.es.
Sentence 2: if the rank has stabilized, the number of linearly independent relationships satis.ed by S has been stabilized, and so has the set of a.ne relationships satis.ed by S. We now state and prove the .nal result that bounds the probability of error in the operation of R.In particular, it also bounds the error probability that R does not reach a .xed point, or that the rank testing mechanism fails to correctly detect the .xed point.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: In our example, there are potentially .ve preemption points in T1, corresponding to the beginning of T1 and the acquire and release operations in the two iterations of the loop.
Sentence 2: our algorithm concludes that the release(lock) operation at E ® is the closest synchronization pointthatin.uencesx.the schedulerisinstrumented toinject apreemption right after thelock release.Bydoing so, the failureis successfully reproduced.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: The points in the transmission range of v that are closer to the source than v are those that lie both in the circle centered at point A and that centered at S.From simulations, we see that with a very high probability there is at least one node, say, w with H(w)= i - 1that iscloser to the source than v and is in the transmission range of v. Therefore, all nodes that are in the transmission range of w and v and are closer to the source must have a hop distance of at most i.
Sentence 2: the nodes in the area common to all the three circles are some of the nodes that are expected to transmit to v under FTS.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: (sm, Dm) and so d *(v1*,x1 xq­1) =d *(v1*,x1 xp­1) and d(v1,x1 xq­1) = d(v1,x1 xp­1).
Sentence 2: * * ** d (v1 ,x1 xi­1) = d (v1 ,x1 xk­1) and d(v1,x1 xi­1) = d(v1,x1 xk­1).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Signal reduction is OR-Knot preserving: for AND.OR WFGsG and G ' , suchthat G ' was createdby applying signal reductionto G, anOR-Knot existsin G ifand onlyifit exists in G ' .
Sentence 2: if G has an OR-knot then its associated signal reduced graph has a non-empty arc set, so G is deadlocked and an OR-Knot in G is a su.cient condition for deadlock.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: However, the con.dences on each of these component contexts are di.erent: whether this event occurs at a scheduled time in a scheduled location or all the attendees attend this event.
Sentence 2: the con.dence on context from virtual sensors can be either the sensor con.dence or the conditional probability on the sensor con.dence (e.g., given that the scheduled event occurs, how often the event occurs in a scheduled location).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: A state transition to a .nal state means that the thread com­pletes and is calling a .nalize run-time service, whereupon the thread terminates after the action of the state transi­tion has been executed.
Sentence 2: a BM of a thread component, in contrast to a BM of a subprogram compo­nent, expresses state transitions which are not relevant to the logical execution (such as initialization transitions).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Mace sstate-event semantics ensures thatanode sstate changes by processing a single event atomically, via a single transition.
Sentence 2: the model checker need only considerevent interleavings across individual events at participating nodes, rather than, for instance, exploring all interleavings at a much .ner granular­ity or forcing the developer to manually identify appropriate transition points.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: While our byte-level throughput control can address policy regarding a job s end-to­end performance, admittedly it could be more complex and expensive to operate during a job s entire lifecycle.
Sentence 2: we can envision a hybrid approach by which a proactive scheduler throttle up/down a job s dispatched tasks and our reactive, byte­level throughput controller begins to operate when the system discovers that a particular job is consuming too much shared bandwidth and affects other jobs negative way.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Ehlers [5] discusses the synthesis of systems that are ro­ bust in the sense that after safety assumption violations, the system must return to an operation mode in which the safety guarantees are satis.ed again after only .nitely many violations of these.
Sentence 2: such systems have a backup strat­egy for anomalous operating conditions without the need for the system engineer to specify one.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: A trusted library provides combinators for copying primitive data (e.g., trPrim for boxed integers) as well as more complex data (e.g., trList n t for lists, where n is the maximum number of elements to copy and t is the transfer function to apply to items).
Sentence 2: the correct version of our example looks like this: r <-forkRC rcset (withRC rc (... expr ...)) x <-copyRCResult r trPrim killRC rc Generally, one wants to take cross-container data (possibly very large) and convert it into a small result, which is then copied back to the original thread.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: If we assume Q as the set of states and T as the set of transitions of the derived DFA, the complexity of the brute force algorithm is O(2|V| × (|Q | + |T |)).
Sentence 2: algorithm 1 is in the worst case superior to the brute force algorithm if the number of identified contradictions in the variable DFA (|C|) is smaller then the size of the derived DFAs (|Q | + |T |).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: while the runtime overhead drops off rapidly between 0.1s­0.25s and then more slowly for successive increases in the sampling interval.
Sentence 2: we select a sampling rate of one snapshot every 0.5 seconds as the sweet spot on the curve where the runtime overhead drops to 11% for any of the benchmarks but the latency remains well under one second (Table 4).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: While the Bytecode Trace Analyzer is able to detect meth­ods that include frequently executed loops, it is not really scan the bytecode trace information; compute loop repetitions L; if(L > High Threshold L) force JIT activation; compute method dynamic size M; if (M > High Threshold M) force JIT activation; else if( (L > Low Threshold L) and (M > T M) ) force JIT activation; else do not force JIT activation, wait next execution or activate Method Execution Counter; Figure 4: Bytecode Trace Analyzer pseudo­code necessary to perform this tracing more than a few times.
Sentence 2: after checking a method and fnding it not wor­thy for a few times, the Method Selector discards it, and a lighter method­grain execution counter is activated, to keep track of the small but frequently executed methods.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: While a subclass in many object­oriented languages explicitly declares its superclass, in mixin­based composition, a mixin does not know which superclass the mixin will be composed with.
Sentence 2: when a user of a mixin (who will be di.erent from an implementor of that mixin) tries to compose it with some other classes, it is possible that a method declared in the mixin accidentally overrides a method declared in the superclass.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: ..R.. .= · ..h. (3) R.. ..h Rh.h..(R..) However, the iterative method of (2) can only be applicable to brute-force optimization.
Sentence 2: we approximate ..Duringa R.. time interval of ...., the maximum workload generated by R.. and h..(R..) can be represented by: .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Our .CTL prover works by reducing the task of .CTL veri.ca­tion, via a program transformation, to an interprocedural program analysis problem.
Sentence 2: we can use known safety analysis tools [5, 11, 19, 26] combined with techniques for re.ning termination arguments [7, 8, 18, 22, 37] to obtain an .CTL veri.cation tool whose power is limited only by the power of these underlying tools.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Thanks to the distinctive characteristics of MEMS-based storage devices (see Section 4.1), no startup energy exists, so that the relative di.erence between the energy consump­tion when TTO = 10 ms and the theoretical minimum does not exceed 7%, leaving very little room for improvement to dynamic policies.
Sentence 2: deploying a .xed-timeout Power Management (PM) policy with a PSM of one low-power mode is su.cient to achieve a near-optimal energy saving at low performance penalty.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Substituting the value of by1 from our .rst equation gives yb2 = bx1A1A2 +bb1A2 +bb2 .
Sentence 2: the intuition is that the two-.lter sequence can be represented by matrices A ' = A1A2 and bb ' = bb1 A2 + bb2 , with peek and pop rates borrowed from A1 and the push rate borrowed from A2 .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: However, the p-values in the experiment provide little guidance toward raw or generic types (p-values = .234 respectively .645 for the Mann-Whitney-U-test), and as such, we are hesitant to make an argument either way.
Sentence 2: we think a conservative interpretation would be that, if generics help or hinder for this kind of task, the impact is small.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Note that compile-time checking of array bounds viola­tions via static analysis is not su.cient by itself because it is usually only successful at proving correctness of a frac­tion (usually small) of array and pointer references [2, 6, 7, 8, 19].
Sentence 2: such static checking techniques are pri­marily useful to reduce the number of run-time checks.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Duringsimulation, the continuous state vi-1 hasbeen up­dated to v ' i-1 according to the continuous state evolution of qi-1, vi'-1 wasfound to satisfy theguard of a transition, and was reset to vi according to the reset map of the transition.
Sentence 2: using the functions PreR and PreE described above, we can compute a set Bi-1 of continuous states such that Ai-1 = {(qi-1,w i-1): wi-1 .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Bracha and Ungar have proposed a set of design princi­ples for the design of a mirror-based metaobject protocol: a re.ective API which fosters a high degree of reusability, loose coupling with base-level objects and whose structure and design directly corresponds to the system being mir­rored [5].
Sentence 2: mostly in.uenced by Self s mirrors [1], we decided to redesign the AmbientTalk architecture in a mirror-based way.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: We make redexes that involve values with stacks of non­identical owners stuck states, which makes violations of the single-owner policy manifest.
Sentence 2: to differentiate between the latter stuck states and stuck states due to type errors we in­troduce error k,dynamictypeerrors.a contractsys­tem thatis a complete monitor renders states unreachableif they are stuckdueto a valuehaving multiple owners.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: toorganizetheclasses[11].Additionally,andwithoutsub­estimatingthebeneftsofusingclasses,someself-designated object-orientedmethodologiesstarttorelegateinheritance toalessimportantposition[12].
Sentence 2: itseemsvalidtheapproachproposedhere:identify frsttheobjectsandthenclassifythem.Duringtheclassi­fcationofobjectstheclassstructureisbuilt,modifed,or ideallyjustused.Reusecanbeachievedin3diferentways, duringtheclassesdiscovery.First,iftherearemorethan oneobjectofthesameclass,theirdefnitionisspecifedin justoneplace.Second,ifclasseswithsimilarproperties arefound,hierarchicalrelationsamongthoseclassescanbe defned.Finally,whenaclassisdescribed,thedeveloper canrecognizetheexistenceofthatclassinalibrary,which allowsittobeimmediatelyreused.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: When the .le system recovers from this crash, it will not replay the transaction writing D (and C) because it has already been released and it will not replay the transaction contain­ing B and M because it has not been committed; as a result, copy C will be unreachable.
Sentence 2: the timing of the new transaction is critical and must be carefully managed, as we will see below.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: By re.ning the notion of containment, Theorem 2 can be re.ned to disallow allocation in regions that are neither global nor present on the region stack, represented by the evaluation context.
Sentence 2: starting with a well-typed value­free program, evaluation introduces no dangling pointers and allows for regions to be allocated and deallocated in a stack-like manner.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: ndnSIM is generally considered to be the most scal­able ICN platform; e.g., as reported by Afsanyev [10] et al., CCNx, ccnSim, DCE, and mini-CCNx can only support ICN simulations with a few hundred routers, and cannot be used for our large-scale evaluation with 80,000+ routers.
Sentence 2: we originally considered using ndnSIM.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Even if the type checking code associated with statement ,5' were considered explidfly as shown in Figure 3, we still cannot hope to deduce useful type information, simply because the assertion may not hold immediately after statement R. That is, a may not be a scalar normegative integer between statements R and ,5" in Figure 3.
Sentence 2: if a program is not given to be type correct to start with, no useful type information can be derived via a backward inference.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: By a one-tailed version of Cheby­ i 2 (ci-E(Yi)) shev s inequality, P r[Yi < ci] = V ar(Yi)+(ci-E(Yi))2 , when ci = ).i×V ar(Yi) E(Yi), and the minimal required ci = E(Yi) + 1-.i .
Sentence 2: eBUA allocates ci cycles to each task Ti, so that the proba­bility that Ti requires no more than ci cycles is at least .i.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: To derive the requested state for the mock object, the pre-condition of the method under test (which includes con­straints on the mock object) is transformed, through re­writing of the speci.cation by following a number of rules.
Sentence 2: for each method of the mocked object a sub­condition of the pre-condition is extracted, such that the sub-condition constraints only the according method.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Finally, we recognize that modern operating systems re­placedswapping withpagingfor agood reason, whichis that pagingis moree.cientin.ne-grained scheduling among ac­tive tasks.
Sentence 2: rather than replace paging with swapping, we combine the bene.ts of both memory management tech­niques: weallowtheOS tocontinueusing normalpagingfor memory management of active tasks, and use swapping only to process application placement events, which are incom­parably less frequent than scheduling events among concur­rent tasks.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: One can observe from Figure 2(b) that, with our approach, the average energy savings for the simple, prediction-based, history-based and staggered strategies are 9.4%, 14.2%, 29.2% and 25.9%, respectively, which are much better than the corresponding (average) savings without our scheme in Fig­ure 2(a), i.e., 4.7%, 6.3%, 15.6% and 9.8%.
Sentence 2: we can conclude that our approach is very successful in practice.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: However, it is di.cult to reuse the bugs in sample set 1, sincethere are not statistically su.cient number ofbug.xes for these types of bugs.
Sentence 2: we deliberately sampled morebug.xesfocusing onthesefourtypes.Speci.cally,we used all the related keywords to search for the bug .xes of a speci.c type.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: For example, a source giving pictures could not be processing by a renderer only able to display textual informations.
Sentence 2: some user choices must have an Figure 1: Global process impact on other FMs by reducing them to products that may be related: these restrictions will be driven by a model of the system representing the di.erent FMs, links between them, and restriction operations to do.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Neverthe­less, they focus on services as core assets in SPL in which services handle variabilities and they address the relation­ship between SOA and SPL from a conceptual level but do not go into details about the implementation activities.
Sentence 2: theydo notprovidedecisions for recommend­ing speci.c variability mechanisms according to granularity, modularity and Separation ofConcerns(SoC) principles and do notprovide the relationshipbetween variabilityand tech­nological concerns, neither address a quantitative analysis.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: The schedule(t) in­struction releases a task t. The call(dt) instruction reads the outputs of task t, where dt is a so-called driver that accesses the outputs of t; it thus provides a deadline for t and we say that the call instruction terminates the task t. The future(n, a) instruction creates a new thread of E code; it speci.es that the current thread continues at address a af­ter waiting for n time units, and that a new thread is started immediately at the address that follows the future instruc­tion.
Sentence 2: future(n, a) is a real-time jump : the time o.set n is the trigger of the jump, and a is the destination.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Software and its engineering
Sentence 1: Too denotes the time to complete the computa- tion's critical path of tasks.
Sentence 2: as has been reported in the Cilk project: Tp ~ max{Too,T1/P} To ensure that Tp is dominated by the total work and not the critical path, we thus must have T1/P > To~:   3(~ 5 (1-'~-) n+l -- (~) n+l) -2 P 14.
Relationship: reasoning