MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524005430

Template semantics: a parameterized approach to semantics-based model compilation

2005· article· en· W2524005430 on OpenAlexaff
Jianwei Niu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgramming languageComputer scienceNotationSemantics (computer science)Well-founded semanticsOperational semanticsDenotational semanticsComputational semanticsAction semanticsParameterized complexityFormal semantics (linguistics)Proof-theoretic semanticsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation discusses a parameterized approach to the compiling of model-based notations into input languages of formal-analysis tools, based on descriptions of the notations' semantics. The semantics of a model-based notation is complex, and formalizing it in a semantics-description language, such as structural operational semantics and higher-order logic, can be challenging and error-prone. We propose a new approach, called template semantics, to structure the semantics of model-based specification notations. We demonstrate how to use template-semantics descriptions to construct notation-specific model compilers, which ease the mapping of new notations or notation variants to analysis tools. The basic computation model of template semantics is a non-concurrent, hierarchical transition system (HTS), whose execution semantics are parameterized. Semantics that are common among notations, e.g., the concept of an enabled transition are captured in the template, and a notation's distinct semantics, e.g., which events can enable transitions, are specified as parameters. HTSs can be combined by composition operators to form more complex, concurrent specifications. We provide the template semantics of seven composition operators and some of their variants; the operators define how multiple HTSs execute concurrently and how they communicate and synchronize with each other by exchanging events and data. The definitions of these operators use the template parameters to preserve notation-specific behaviour in composition. By separating a notation's step semantics from its composition operators, we simplify the definitions of both.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207