MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143473941 · doi:10.1145/2789208

Upper Bounds for Newton’s Method on Monotone Polynomial Systems, and P-Time Model Checking of Probabilistic One-Counter Automata

2015· article· en· W2143473941 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alistair Stewart, Kousha Etessami, Mihalis Yannakakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Society of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsMonotone polygonUpper and lower boundsCombinatoricsRoundingDiscrete mathematicsRate of convergenceFunction (biology)Newton's methodProbabilistic logicMarkov chainContext (archaeology)Applied mathematicsComputer scienceNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central computational problem for analyzing and model checking various classes of infinite-state recursive probabilistic systems (including quasi-birth-death processes, multitype branching processes, stochastic context-free grammars, probabilistic pushdown automata and recursive Markov chains) is the computation of termination probabilities, and computing these probabilities in turn boils down to computing the least fixed point (LFP) solution of a corresponding monotone polynomial system (MPS) of equations, denoted x = P ( x ). It was shown in Etessami and Yannakakis [2009] that a decomposed variant of Newton’s method converges monotonically to the LFP solution for any MPS that has a nonnegative solution. Subsequently, Esparza et al. [2010] obtained upper bounds on the convergence rate of Newton’s method for certain classes of MPSs. More recently, better upper bounds have been obtained for special classes of MPSs [Etessami et al. 2010, 2012]. However, prior to this article, for arbitrary (not necessarily strongly connected) MPSs, no upper bounds at all were known on the convergence rate of Newton’s method as a function of the encoding size |P| of the input MPS, x = P ( x ). In this article, we provide worst-case upper bounds, as a function of both the input encoding size |P|, and ε > 0, on the number of iterations required for decomposed Newton’s method (even with rounding) to converge to within additive error ε > 0 of q*, for an arbitrary MPS with LFP solution q*. Our upper bounds are essentially optimal in terms of several important parameters of the problem. Using our upper bounds, and building on prior work, we obtain the first P-time algorithm (in the standard Turing model of computation) for quantitative model checking, to within arbitrary desired precision, of discrete-time QBDs and (equivalently) probabilistic 1-counter automata, with respect to any (fixed) ω -regular or LTL property.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0040.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207