MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129008814 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2013.105

GPU-based Runtime Verification

2013· article· en· W2129008814 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
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)ExploitMulti-core processorRuntime verificationSet (abstract data type)Instruction setParallel computingEmbedded systemFormal verificationOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Runtime verification is a monitoring technique to gain assurance about well-being of a program at run time. Most existing approaches use sequential monitors; i.e., when the state of the program with respect to an event of interest changes, the monitor interrupts the program execution, evaluates a set of logical properties, and finally resumes the program execution. In this paper, we propose a GPU-based method for design and implementation of monitors that enjoy two levels of parallelism: the monitor (1) works along with the program in parallel, and (2) evaluates a set of properties in a parallel fashion as well. Our parallel monitoring algorithms effectively exploit the many-core platform available in the GPU. In addition to parallel processing, our approach benefits from a true separation of monitoring and functional concerns, as it isolates the monitor in the GPU. Our method is fully implemented and experimental results show significant reduction in monitoring overhead, monitoring interference, and power consumption due to leveraging the GPU technology.

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 score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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