MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098613964 · doi:10.1109/lcn.1999.802005

Using formal specification and observers to specify and validate the ATM signaling protocols

2003· article· en· W2098613964 on OpenAlexafffund
J. William Atwood, Mohsen Ghodrat, D. Tasak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceConformance testingProtocol (science)Formal specificationLanguage Of Temporal Ordering SpecificationFormal methodsCommunications protocolSpecification languageProgramming languageService (business)Formal descriptionSoftware engineeringComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When ensuring that an implementation of a computer communications protocol satisfies both conformance with the specification and conformance with the intent/expectations of the designers, it is useful to write a formal specification, and derive the implementation directly from it. This permits the use of validation techniques that are expressed using concepts meaningful to the protocol designer. This technique has been applied to the testing and validation of the ATM higher layer signaling protocol (Q.2931) and the service specific connection oriented protocol (Q.2110), using the Estelle formal description language, and the observers of the Estelle Development Toolset.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207