MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145158997 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.14.6

An Efficient Explicit-time Description Method for Timed Model Checking

2009· article· en· W2145158997 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsModel checkingProcess (computing)RendezvousSynchronization (alternating current)Modularity (biology)AutomatonState (computer science)Variable (mathematics)Semaphore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timed model checking, the method to formally verify real-time systems, is attracting increasing attention from both the model checking community and the real-time community. Explicit-time description methods verify real-time systems using general model constructs found in standard un-timed model checkers. Lamport proposed an explicit-time description method using a clock-ticking process (Tick) to simulate the passage of time together with a group of global variables to model time requirements. Two methods, the Sync-based Explicit-time Description Method using rendezvous synchronization steps and the Semaphore-based Explicit-time Description Method using only one global variable were proposed; they both achieve better modularity than Lamport's method in modeling the real-time systems. In contrast to timed automata based model checkers like UPPAAL, explicit-time description methods can access and store the current time instant for future calculations necessary for many real-time systems, especially those with pre-emptive scheduling. However, the Tick process in the above three methods increments the time by one unit in each tick; the state spaces therefore grow relatively fast as the time parameters increase, a problem when the system's time period is relatively long. In this paper, we propose a more efficient method which enables the Tick process to leap multiple time units in one tick. Preliminary experimental results in a high performance computing environment show that this new method significantly reduces the state space and improves both the time and memory efficiency.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207