Probabilistic Analysis of Wireless Systems Using Theorem Proving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic techniques play a major role in the design and analysis of wireless systems as they contain a significant amount of random or unpredictable components. Traditionally, computer simulation techniques are used to perform probabilistic analysis of wireless systems but they provide inaccurate results and usually require enormous amount of CPU time in order to attain reasonable estimates. To overcome these limitations, we propose to use a higher-order-logic theorem prover (HOL) for the analysis of wireless systems. The paper presents a concise description of the formal foundations required to conduct the analysis of a wireless system in a theorem prover, such as the higher-order-logic modeling of random variables and the verification of their corresponding probabilistic and statistical properties in a theorem prover. In order to illustrate the utilization and effectiveness of the proposed idea for handling real-world wireless system analysis problems, we present an analysis of the automated repeat request (ARQ) mechanism at the logic link control (LLC) layer of the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), which is a packet oriented mobile data service available to the users of Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM).
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".