REPRESENTATION OF SEMIAUTOMATA BY CANONICAL WORDS AND EQUIVALENCES, PART II: SPECIFICATION OF SOFTWARE MODULES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theory of representation of semiautomata by canonical words and equivalences was developed in [7]. That work was motivated by trace-assertion specifications of software modules, but its focus was entirely on the underlying mathematical model. In the present paper we extend that theory to automata with Moore and Mealy outputs, and show how to apply the extended theory to the specification of modules. In particular, we present a unified view of the trace-assertion methodology, as guided by our theory. We illustrate this approach, and some specific issues, using several nontrivial examples. We include a discussion of finite versus infinite modules, methods of error handling, some awkward features of the trace-assertion method, and a comparison to specifications by automata. While specifications by trace assertions and automata are equivalent in power, there are cases where one approach appears to be more natural than the other. We conclude that, for certain types of system modules, formal specification by automata, as opposed to informal state machines, is not only possible, but practical.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it