MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424668608 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2016.7490556

Formal analysis of fault tree using probabilistic model checking: A solar array case study

2016· article· en· W2424668608 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault tree analysisComputer scienceProbabilistic logicProbabilistic CTLMarkov chainModel checkingReliability engineeringMarkov processMarkov modelReliability (semiconductor)Markov decision processProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsReal-time computingAlgorithmTheoretical computer sciencePower (physics)EngineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a widespread technique used to assess the reliability of safety-critical systems. The traditional way of conducting FTA is either through paper and pencil proof or through computer simulation techniques, which are inefficient and prone to inaccuracy. In this paper, we propose the use of probabilistic model checking to automatically analyze fault trees of safety-critical systems. Our methodology consists in the probabilistic formalization of the gates used in a fault tree to a Discrete-Time Markov Chain (DTMC) and a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and the subsequent probabilistic verification using PRISM tool to quantitatively analyze the system. To illustrate the proposed approach we perform the fault tree analysis of a solar array system, used as power source for the DFH-3 satellite. The results show that harsh thermal environment is the main cause of system failures.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.266 · 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