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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formal models are often considered for software systems specification, and are helpful for verifying that certain properties are respected, or for automatically generating the implementation code corresponding to the model, or again for conformance testing, for the automatic generation of test cases to check an implementation against the formal specification. Variations of finite state machine (FSM) models have been mostly used for conformance testing, while the otherwise very popular formal model of Petri nets is seldom mentioned in this context. In this paper, we look at the question of conformance testing when the model is provided in the form of a 1-safe Petri net. We provide a general framework for conformance testing, and give algorithms for deriving test cases under different assumptions: besides the adaptation of methods originally developed for FSMs which lead to exponentially long test sequences, we have identified cases for which polynomial testing algorithms for free-choice Petri nets can be provided. These results are significant when modeling concurrent systems, as exemplified by workflow modeling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it