MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133853708 · doi:10.5555/776816.776844

Data flow testing as model checking

2003· article· en· W2133853708 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

VenueScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel checkingComputer scienceComputation tree logicTemporal logicCounterexampleLinear temporal logicConstruct (python library)CTL*Programming languageSet (abstract data type)Test caseAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a model checking-based approach to data flow testing. We characterize data flow oriented coverage criteria in temporal logic such that the problem of test generation is reduced to the problem of finding witnesses for a set of temporal logic formulas. The capability of model checkers to construct witnesses and counterexamples allows test generation to be fully automatic. We discuss complexity issues in minimal cost test generation and describe heurstic test generation algorithms. We illustrate our approach using CTLas temporal logic and SMV as model checker. 1

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.139 · 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