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 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.092
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