MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115995803 · doi:10.1109/ismvl.2001.924571

Model checking with multi-valued temporal logics

2002· article· en· W2115995803 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputation tree logicModel checkingKripke structureComputer scienceKripke semanticsLinear temporal logicTemporal logicBinary decision diagramTheoretical computer scienceAtomic sentenceTruth valueExtension (predicate logic)Semantics (computer science)AlgorithmSymbolic trajectory evaluationProgramming languageIntermediate logicDescription logicArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-valued logics support the explicit modeling of uncertainty and disagreement by allowing additional truth values in the logic. Such logics can be used for verification of dynamic properties of systems where complete, agreed upon models of the system are not available. This paper presents a symbolic model checker for multi-valued temporal logics. The model checker works for any multi-valued logic whose truth values form a quasi-boolean lattice. Our models are generalized Kripke structures, where both atomic propositions and transitions between states may take any of the truth values of a given multi-valued logic. Properties to be model checked are expressed in CTL, generalized with a multi-valued semantics. The design of the model checker is based on the use of MDDs, a multi-valued extension of binary decision diagrams.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207