MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001007953 · doi:10.1017/s0960129512000291

Applications and extensions of Alloy: past, present and future

2013· article· en· W2001007953 on OpenAlexaff
Emina Torlak, Mana Taghdiri, Greg Dennis, Joseph P. Near

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageExecutableDebuggingCompilerTemporal logicModeling languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alloy is a declarative language for lightweight modelling and analysis of software. The core of the language is based on first-order relational logic, which offers an attractive balance between analysability and expressiveness. The logic is expressive enough to capture the intricacies of real systems, but is also simple enough to support fully automated analysis with the Alloy Analyzer. The Analyzer is built on a SAT-based constraint solver and provides automated simulation, checking and debugging of Alloy specifications. Because of its automated analysis and expressive logic, Alloy has been applied in a wide variety of domains. These applications have motivated a number of extensions both to the Alloy language and to its SAT-based analysis. This paper provides an overview of Alloy in the context of its three largest application domains, lightweight modelling, bounded code verification and test-case generation, and three recent application-driven extensions, an imperative extension to the language, a compiler to executable code and a proof-capable analyser based on SMT.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Structures in Computer ScienceSame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207