MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145554021 · doi:10.1109/wccit.2013.6618673

Cone of influence and constants propgation reduction techniques for MDG model checker

2013· article· en· W2145554021 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Elmansori

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel checkingReduction (mathematics)Computer scienceAbstraction model checkingProcess (computing)Reduction strategyTheoretical computer scienceConstant (computer programming)State (computer science)AlgorithmFormal verificationProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sizes and complexity of modern design models has become the main challenges that can limit the model checking process due to the state explosion problem. Applying reduction techniques on complex modern system models to reduce their sizes, obtain relevant parts, and basically constructing such simplification for the model checking process can lead to verify those complex models. While Multiway Decision Graphs model checker (MDG-MC) has great advantages of using abstract variables and uninterpreted function symbols to describe sets of states and transition relations that increase the functional domain of MDG-MC, the state explosion problem is still the main limitation that prevents MDG-MC from verifying real modern designs. In this paper, and to alleviate the state explosion problem, we introduce a simple but powerful Cone of Influence and constants propagation reduction techniques to improve the efficiency of verification process of MDG-MC. The preliminary experimental results confirm that the reduction in model checking time and memory size can be dramatic, thereby allowing for the verification of hitherto intractable systems.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207