Formal refinement of extended state machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a traditional formal development process, e.g. using the B method, the informal user requirements are (manually) translated into a global abstract formal specification. This translation is especially difficult to achieve. The Event-B method was developed to incrementally and formally construct such a specification using stepwise refinement. Each increment takes into account new properties and system aspects. In this paper, we propose to couple a graphical notation called Algebraic State-Transition Diagrams (ASTD) with an Event-B specification in order to provide a better understanding of the software behaviour. The dynamic behaviour is captured by the ASTD, which is based on automata and process algebra operators, while the data model is described by means of an Event-B specification. We propose a methodology to incrementally refine such specification couplings, taking into account new refinement relations and consistency conditions between the control specification and the data specification. We compare the specifications obtained using each approach for readability and proof complexity. The advantages and drawbacks of the traditional approach and of our methodology are discussed. The whole process is illustrated by a railway CBTC-like case study. Our approach is supported by tools for translating ASTD's into B and Event-B into B.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".