On the use of model checking for the verification of a dynamic signature monitoring approach
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
Consequences of transient faults represent a significant problem for today's electronic circuits and systems. As the probability of such errors increases, incorporation of error detection and correction mechanisms is mandatory. It is well known that traditional techniques that validate system's reliability do not cover the whole spectrum of fault scenarios, because fault models are linked to target architectures. Therefore, validating the completeness of robust fault tolerance techniques is a major issue when assessing reliability improvements these techniques can produce. In this paper, we propose an original approach to evaluate the system reliability with respect to Single Event Upset (SEU) errors. It is based on model-checking principles. In addition, a signature analysis technique is evaluated. This technique was previously validated using a simulation-based fault injection approach. Simulation results showed that no error escapes detection. However, simulation based fault injection cannot guarantee that all fault consequences have been investigated. This limitation motivates us to explore a formal verification approach that targets a complete validation. Model checking has a fundamental advantage over classic fault-injection techniques: it can cover all possible SEU fault scenarios from a predefined class. Results reported in this paper demonstrate the efficiency of this validation approach over usual simulation-based techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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