MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403555318 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-125-0-91

Quantitative Model Checking of Knowledge

2012· book-chapter· en· W2403555318 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model checking, a formal and automatic verification method, has been widely used to check specifications expressed not only as qualitative properties (e.g safety and liveliness), but also as quantitative properties (e.g. degree of reliability and reachability). In this paper, we present a method for probabilistic model checking of multi-agent systems specified by a probabilistic-epistemic logic PCTLK. We define transformations from probabilistic interpreted systems into Discrete-time Markov chains (DTMC) and from PCTLK formulae to PCTL formulae so that we are able to convert the problem of model checking PCTLK to the one of PCTL. The algorithm is implemented in the probabilistic model checker PRISM. Some properties, including agents' probabilistic knowledge, are verified and simulations are shown.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207