MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168015072 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2003.1226127

Formal description of an ATM system by RTPA

2004· article· en· W2168015072 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessDependabilityProcess (computing)Conceptual modelFinite-state machineAbstract state machinesSet (abstract data type)Formal specificationFormal verificationFormal methodsArchitectureModel checkingSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automated teller machine (ATM) is a safety-critical and real-time system. The modeling and description of an ATM is a classical real-world case because its conceptual model is well known as a working project in real-time system design. For ensuring correctness and dependability, real-time process algebra (RTPA) is adopted to specify a formal model of the ATM. By using RTPA, the architecture, static and dynamic behaviors of the ATM can be described formally, precisely, and consistently. This paper describes the conceptual and formal models of the ATM. The conceptual model of the ATM is described by a finite state machine (FSM), and the formal model is specified by RTPA. This paper demonstrates that the ATM can be formally described by a set of real-time processes in RTPA. It also shows the relationship between the RTPA model and the FSM model of the ATM system.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207