MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491068252 · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2016.2596719

Symbolic Synthesis of Timed Models with Strict 2-Phase Fault Recovery

2016· article· en· W2491068252 on OpenAlexaff
Fathiyeh Faghih, Borzoo Bonakdarpour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomatonTimed automatonBisimulationModel checkingTheoretical computer scienceTime complexityFault modelAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we focus on efficient synthesis of fault-tolerant timed models from their fault-intolerant version. Although the complexity of the synthesis problem is known to be polynomial time in the size of the time-abstract bisimulation of the input model, the state of the art currently lacks synthesis algorithms that can be efficiently implemented. This is in part due to the fact that synthesis is in general a challenging problem and its complexity is significantly magnified in the context of timed systems. We propose an algorithm that takes as input a timed automaton, a set of fault actions, and a set of safety and bounded-time response properties, and utilizes a space-efficient symbolic representation of the timed automaton (called zone graph) to synthesize a fault-tolerant timed automaton as output. The output automaton satisfies strict phased recovery, where it is guaranteed that the output model behaves similarly to the input model in the absence of faults and in the presence of faults, fault recovery is achieved in two phases, each satisfying certain safety and timing constraints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure ComputingSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207