MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055403222 · doi:10.5555/1639809.1655372

Verification of real-time DEVS models

2009· article· en· W2055403222 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceAutomatonDiscrete event simulationElevatorEvent (particle physics)SoftwareDistributed computingModeling and simulationTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrete Event System Specification (DEVS) has been widely used to describe hierarchical models of discrete systems. DEVS has also been used successfully to model with Real-Time constraints. In this paper, we introduce a methodology to verify Real-Time DEVS models, and describe the methodology by using a case study of a DEVS model of an elevator system. Our methodology applies recent advances in theoretical model checking to DEVS models. The methodology also handles the cases where theoretical approach is not feasible to cross the gap between abstract Timed Automata models and the complexity of the DEVS Real-time implementation by empirical software engineering methods. The case study is a system composed of an elevator along an elevator controller, and we show how the methodology can be applied to a real case like this one in order to improve the quality of such real-time applications. Keywords: DEVS, Formal methods verification, Real-Time software, Timed automata. I.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207