MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Formal Reliability Analysis of Engineering Systems

2014· book-chapter· en· W2490656683 on OpenAlexaff
Naeem Abbasi, Osman Hasan, Sofiène Tahar

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceProbabilistic logicReliability engineeringFormal methodsRandom variableTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsEngineeringProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliability analysis of engineering systems has traditionally been done using computationally expensive computer simulations that cannot attain 100% accuracy due to their inherent limitations. The authors conduct a formal reliability analysis using higher-order-logic theorem proving, which is known to be sound, accurate, and exhaustive. For this purpose, they present the higher-order-logic formalization of independent multiple continuous random variables, their verified probabilistic properties, and generalized relations for commonly encountered reliability structures in engineering systems. To illustrate the usefulness of the approach, the authors present the formal reliability analysis of a single stage transmission of an automobile.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.012
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in information security, privacy, and ethics book seriesSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207