Measuring Progress of Probabilistic LTL Model Checking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Zhang and Van Breugel introduced the notion of a progress measure for a probabilistic model checker. Given a linear-time property P and a description of the part of the system that has already been checked, the progress measure returns a real number in the unit interval. The real number captures how much progress the model checker has made towards verifying P. If the progress is zero, no progress has been made. If it is one, the model checker is done. They showed that the progress measure provides a lower bound for the measure of the set of execution paths that satisfy P. They also presented an algorithm to compute the progress measure when P is an invariant. In this paper, we present an algorithm to compute the progress measure when P is a formula of a positive fragment of linear temporal logic. In this fragment, we can express invariants but also many other interesting properties. The algorithm is exponential in the size of P and polynomial in the size of that part of the system that has already been checked. We also present an algorithm to compute a lower bound for the progress measure in polynomial time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".