MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104141758

Towards integrated verification of timed transition models

2006· article· en· W2104141758 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Lawford, Vera Pantelic, Hong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel checkingComputer scienceAutomatonEquivalence (formal languages)Temporal logicTransition systemFormal verificationAbstraction model checkingEvent (particle physics)Programming languageTheoretical computer scienceState (computer science)Truth valueAlgorithmMathematicsDiscrete mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper describes an attempt to combine theorem proving and model-checking to formally verify real-time systems in a discrete time setting. The Timed Automata Modeling Environment (TAME) has been modified to provide a formal model for Time Transition Models (TTMs) in the PVS proof checker. Strong and weak state-event observation equivalences are formalized in PVS for state-event labeled transition systems (SELTS), the underlying semantic model of TTMs. The state-event equivalences form the basis of truth value preserving abstractions for a real-time temporal logic. When appropriate restrictions are placed upon the TTMs, their PVS models can be easily translated into input for the SAL model-checker. A simple real-time control system is specified and verified using these theories. While these preliminary results indicate that the combination of PVS and SAL could provide a useful environment to perform equivalence verification, model-checking and compositional model reduction of real-time systems, the current implementation in the general purpose SAL model-checker lags well behind state of the art real-time model-checkers. Keywords: Real-time, equivalence verification, theorem proving, PVS, model-checking, model reduction, SAL

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207