MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087188285 · doi:10.1007/s00165-008-0073-8

Beyond contracts for concurrency

2008· article· en· W2087188285 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFormal Aspects of Computing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSCOOPComputer scienceConcurrencyAtomicityProgramming languageLivenessTheory of computationHoare logicSemantics (computer science)Separation logicTheoretical computer scienceDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SCOOP is a concurrent programming language with a new semantics for contracts that applies equally well in concurrent and sequential contexts. SCOOP eliminates race conditions and atomicity violations by construction. However, it is still vulnerable to deadlocks. In this paper we describe how far contracts can take us in verifying interesting properties of concurrent systems using modular Hoare rules and show how theorem proving methods developed for sequential Eiffel can be extended to the concurrent case. However, some safety and liveness properties depend upon the environment and cannot be proved using the Hoare rules. To deal with such system properties, we outline a SCOOP Virtual Machine (SVM) as a fair transition system. The SVM makes it feasible to use model-checking and theorem proving methods for checking global temporal logic properties of SCOOP programs. The SVM uses the Hoare rules where applicable to reduce the number of steps in a computation.

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)0.000
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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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