MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519061151

Oscillator verification with probability one

2012· article· en· W1519061151 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFormal Methods in Computer-Aided Design · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundnessGeneralizationComputer scienceDifferential (mechanical device)Formal verificationRing oscillatorRuntime verificationTask (project management)Ring (chemistry)Control theory (sociology)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmElectronic engineeringMathematicsEngineeringProgramming languageArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the formal verification of startup for a differential ring-oscillator circuit used in industrial designs. Dynamical systems theory shows that any oscillator must have a non-empty failure; however, it is possible to show that these failures only occur with zero probability. To do so, this paper generalizes the “cone argument” initially presented in [1] and proves the soundness of this generalization. This paper also shows how concepts from analog design such as differential operation can be soundly incorporated into the verification to produce simpler models and reduce the complexity of the verification task.

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 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)0.007
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.246 · 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