On the need for data flow graph visualization of Forensic Lucid programs and encoded evidence, and their evaluation by GIPSY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lucid programs are data-flow programs and can be visually represented as data flow graphs (DFGs) and composed visually. Forensic Lucid, a Lucid dialect, is a language to specify and reason about cyberforensic cases. It includes the encoding of the evidence (representing the context of evaluation) and the crime scene modeling in order to validate claims against the model and perform event reconstruction, potentially within large swaths of digital evidence. To aid investigators to model the scene and evaluate it, instead of typing a Forensic Lucid program, we propose to expand the design and implementation of the Lucid DFG programming onto Forensic Lucid case modeling and specification to enhance the usability of the language and the system. We briefly discuss the related work on visual programming and DFG modeling in an attempt to define and select one approach or a composition of approaches for Forensic Lucid based on various criteria such as previous implementation, wide use, formal backing in terms of semantics and translation. In the end, we solicit the readers' constructive, opinions, feedback, comments, and recommendations within the context of this short discussion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".