MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052173215 · doi:10.1145/959221.959238

An approach to formal verication of real time concurrent Ada programs

2003· article· en· W2052173215 on OpenAlex
Douglas J. Howe, Stephen Michell

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGAda Ada Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessSPARK (programming language)Programming languageAutomated theorem provingCode (set theory)Gas meter proverProof assistantStatic analysisModel checkingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SPARK system provides static analysis tools for a highly restricted sequential Ada subset, including a proof checking tool for verifying partial correctness properties. Recently, SPARK Ada has been extended to include much of the Ravenscar Tasking Pro le which supports construction of high integrity real time systems. However, the veri cation machinery has not been changed, and can only handle purely sequential properties of the code. This paper sketches an approach to reasoning about the concurrent and real-time aspects that SPARK cannot handle. The approach involves compiling an abstract model of the Ada program that can be embedded in a general purpose theorem prover (e.g. PVS). The compilation makes heavy use of SPARK's existing static analysis tools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it