MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976967219 · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.01.045

A New Approach to Upward-Closed Set Backward Reachability Analysis

2005· article· en· W1976967219 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Bingham

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReachabilityParameterized complexityPetri netBinary decision diagramFixed pointModel checkingIntersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)ComputationAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceStochastic Petri netClass (philosophy)State (computer science)MathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a new framework for computing the backward reachability from an upward-closed set in a class of parameterized (i.e. infinite state) systems that includes broadcast protocols and petri nets. In contrast to the standard approach, which performs a single least fixpoint computation, we consecutively compute the finite state least fixpoint for constituents of increasing size, which allows us to employ binary decision diagram (BDD)-based symbolic model checking. In support of this framework, we prove necessary and sufficient conditions for convergence and intersection with the initial states, and provide an algorithm that uses BDDs as the underlying data structure. We give experimental results that demonstrate the existence of a petri net for which our algorithm is an order of magnitude faster than the standard approach, and speculate properties that might suggest which approach to apply.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207