MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989992186 · doi:10.1504/ijccbs.2012.045074

MDG-SAT: an automated methodology for efficient safety checking

2012· article· en· W1989992186 on OpenAlexaff
Khaza Anuarul Hoque, Otmane Aı̈t Mohamed, Nahum Sá, Sa’ed Abed, Mounir Boukadoum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Critical Computer-Based Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceModel checkingFormal verificationBoolean satisfiability problemSatisfiability modulo theoriesProgramming languageTheoretical computer scienceSatisfiabilityAutomated theorem provingInvariant (physics)Symbolic executionSet (abstract data type)ENCODEMathematicsSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiway decision graph (MDG) is a canonical representation of a subset of many-sorted first-order logic. It generalises the logic of equality with abstract types and uninterpreted function symbols. The area of satisfiability (SAT) has been the subject of intensive research in recent years, with significant theoretical and practical contributions. In this paper, we propose a new design verification tool integrating MDG and SAT, to check the safety of a design by invariant checking. Using MDG to encode the set of states provides a powerful mean of abstraction. We use a SAT solver to search for paths of reachable states violating the property under certain encoding constraints. In addition, we introduce an automated conversion-verification methodology to convert a directed formula (DF) into a conjunctive normal form (CNF) formula that can be fed to a SAT solver. The formal verification of this conversion is conducted within the HOL theorem prover. Finally, we present experimental results and a case study to show the correctness and the efficiency of our proposed methodology.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Critical Computer-Based SystemsSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207