Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. For over a decade, researchers in formal methods have tried to create formalisms that permit natural specification of systems and allow mathematical reasoning about their correctness. The availability of fully automated reasoning tools enables non-experts to use formal methods effectively—their responsibility reduces to specifying the model and expressing the desired properties. Thus, it is essential that these properties be represented in a language that is easy to use, sufficiently expressive and succinct. Linear-time temporal logic (LTL) is a formalism that has been used extensively by researchers for program specification and verification. One of the desired properties of LTL formulas is closure under stuttering . That is, we do not want the interpretation of formulas to change over traces where some states are repeated. This property is important from both practical and theoretical prospectives; all properties which are closed under stuttering can be expressed in LTL −X —a fragment of LTL without the ‘next’ operator. However, it is often difficult to express properties in this fragment of LTL. Further, determining whether a given LTL property is closed under stuttering is PSPACE-complete. In this paper, we introduce a notion of edges of LTL formulas and present a formal theory of closure under stuttering. Edges allow natural modelling of systems with events. Our theory enables syntactic reasoning about whether the resulting properties are closed under stuttering. Finally, we apply the theory to the pattern-based approach of specifying temporal formulas.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".