Formal Reliability Analysis Using Theorem Proving
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
Reliability analysis has become a tool of fundamental importance to virtually all electrical and computer engineers because of the extensive usage of hardware systems in safety and mission critical domains, such as medicine, military, and transportation. Due to the strong relationship between reliability theory and probabilistic notions, computer simulation techniques have been traditionally used to perform reliability analysis. However, simulation provides less accurate results and cannot handle large-scale systems due to its enormous CPU time requirements. To ensure accurate and complete reliability analysis and thus more reliable hardware designs, we propose to conduct a formal reliability analysis of systems within the sound core of a higher order logic theorem prover (HOL). In this paper, we present the higher order logic formalization of some fundamental reliability theory concepts, which can be built upon to precisely analyze the reliability of various engineering systems. The proposed approach and formalization is then utilized to analyze the repairability conditions for a reconfigurable memory array in the presence of stuck-at and coupling faults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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