Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Formal methods in security engineering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume contains the proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Formal Methods in Engineering (FMSE 2004) held in Washington D.C., October 29th, in conjunction with the 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. The purpose of FMSE is to bring together researchers and practitioners from both the security and the software engineering communities, from academia and industry, who are working on applying formal methods to designing and validating large-scale security-critical systems. The scope of the workshop covers security and formal-methods related aspects of: security specification techniques, formal trust models, combination of formal techniques with semi-formal techniques like UML, formal analyses of specific security properties relevant to software development, security-preserving composition and refinement of processes, faithful abstractions of cryptographic primitives and protocols in process abstractions, integration of formal security specifications, as well as refinement and validation techniques in development methods and tools. The paper selection process was very competitive this year. The call for papers attracted 25 submissions from Asia, Canada, Europe, Africa, and the United States. The program committee accepted 9 papers for presentation at the workshop, which means that many high-quality papers had to be rejected. In addition, the program included an invited talk on Security Analysis of Network Protocols by John C. Mitchell as well as an invited talk on Model-driven development of Components by Prem Devanbu.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it