Synthesizing bounded-time 2-phase fault recovery
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
Abstract We focus on synthesis techniques for transforming existing fault-intolerant real-time programs into fault-tolerant programs that provide phased recovery . A fault-tolerant program is one that satisfies its safety and liveness specifications as well as timing constraints in the presence of faults. We argue that in many commonly considered programs (especially in safety/mission-critical systems), when faults occur, simple recovery to the program’s normal behavior is necessary, but not sufficient. For such programs, it is necessary that recovery is accomplished in a sequence of phases, each ensuring that the program satisfies certain properties. In the simplest case, in the first phase the program recovers to an acceptable behavior within some time θ , and, in the second phase, it recovers to the ideal behavior within time δ . In this article, we introduce four different types of bounded-time 2-phase recovery, namely ordered-strict, strict, relaxed, and graceful, based on how a real-time fault-tolerant program reaches the acceptable and ideal behaviors in the presence of faults. We rigorously analyze the complexity of automated synthesis of each type: we either show that the problem is hard in some class of complexity or we present a sound and complete synthesis algorithm. We argue that such complexity analysis is essential to deal with the highly complex decision procedures of program synthesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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