MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Formal Analysis of Real-Time Systems

2011· book-chapter· en· W2487387108 on OpenAlexaff
Osman Hasan, Sofiène Tahar

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHOLComputer scienceAutomated theorem provingParallelism (grammar)Gas meter proverFormal methodsTheoretical computer scienceState (computer science)Programming languageMathematicsParallel computingMathematical proof

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time systems usually involve a subtle interaction of a number of distributed components and have a high degree of parallelism, which makes their performance analysis quite complex. Thus, traditional techniques, such as simulation, or state-based formal methods usually fail to produce reasonable results. The main limitation of these approaches may be overcome by conducting the performance analysis of real-time systems using higher-order-logic theorem proving. This chapter is mainly oriented towards this emerging trend and it provides the details about analyzing both functional and performance related properties of real-time systems using a higher-order-logic theorem prover (HOL). For illustration purposes, the Stop-and-Wait protocol, which is a classical example of real-time systems, has been considered as a case-study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207