MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259714137 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.184.6

Using Indexed and Synchronous Events to Model and Validate Cyber-Physical Systems

2015· article· en· W2259714137 on OpenAlexaff
Chen-Wei Wang, Jonathan S. Ostroff, Simon Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLivenessEvent (particle physics)Semantics (computer science)Search engine indexingConstruct (python library)State (computer science)SyntaxModel checkingProgramming languageReal-time computingInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timed Transition Models (TTMs) are event-based descriptions for modelling, specifying, and verifying discrete real-time systems. An event can be spontaneous, fair, or timed with specified bounds. TTMs have a textual syntax, an operational semantics, and an automated tool supporting linear-time temporal logic. We extend TTMs and its tool with two novel modelling features for writing high-level specifications: indexed events and synchronous events. Indexed events allow for concise description of behaviour common to a set of actors. The indexing construct allows us to select a specific actor and to specify a temporal property for that actor. We use indexed events to validate the requirements of a train control system. Synchronous events allow developers to decompose simultaneous state updates into actions of separate events. To specify the intended data flow among synchronized actions, we use primed variables to reference the post-state (i.e., one resulted from taking the synchronized actions). The TTM tool automatically infers the data flow from synchronous events, and reports errors on inconsistencies due to circular data flow. We use synchronous events to validate part of the requirements of a nuclear shutdown system. In both case studies, we show how the new notation facilitates the formal validation of system requirements, and use the TTM tool to verify safety, liveness, and real-time properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207