MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267900762

Weakest Precondition Calculus, Revisited using Why3

2012· preprint· en· W2267900762 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

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreconditionSoundnessPredicate transformer semanticsCalculus (dental)Proof calculusStructural proof theoryComputer scienceFocus (optics)Natural deductionSemantics (computer science)MathematicsProgramming languageProof theoryMathematical proofOperational semantics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report has two objectives. First, we present an original method of proof of soundness of a weakest precondition calculus, based on the notion of blocking semantics. The method mimics, at the level of logic specifications, the classical proof of type soundness. Moreover, the proof is performed formally using the Why3 environment for deductive verification, and we illustrate, along the development of the case study, the advanced features of Why3 we used. The result is a revisited presentation the weakest precondition calculus which is easy to follow, although formally made, thanks in particular to the high degree of proof automation that allows us to focus on the key points.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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