Automated closed-loop model checking of implantable pacemakers using abstraction trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous medical devices such as implantable cardiac pacemakers are capable of diagnosing the patient condition and delivering therapy without human intervention. Their ability to autonomously affect the physiological state of the patient makes them safety-critical. Sufficient evidence for the safety and efficacy of the device software, which makes these autonomous decisions, should be provided before these devices can be released on the market. Formal methods like model checking can provide safety evidence that the devices can safely operate under a large variety of physiological conditions. The challenge is to develop physiological models that are general enough to cover the large variability of human physiology, and also expressive enough to provide physiological contexts to counter-examples returned by the model checker. In this paper, the authors develop a set of physiological abstraction rules that introduce physiological constraints to heart models. By applying these abstraction rules to a initial set of heart models, an abstraction tree is created. The root model covers all possible inputs to a pacemaker and derived models cover inputs from different heart conditions. If a counter-example is returned by the model checker, the abstraction tree is traversed so that the most concrete counter-example(s) with physiological contexts can be returned to the domain experts for validity check. The abstraction tree framework replaces the manual abstraction and refinement framework, which reduced the amount of domain knowledge required to perform closed-loop model checking. It encourages the use of model checking during the development of autonomous medical devices, and identifies safety risks earlier in the design process. 1
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".