Decentralized Asynchronous Crash-resilient Runtime Verification
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Runtime verification is a lightweight method for monitoring the formal specification of a system during its execution. It has recently been shown that a given state predicate can be monitored consistently by a set of crash-prone asynchronous distributed monitors observing the system, only if each monitor can emit verdicts taken from a large enough finite set. We revisit this impossibility result in the concrete context of linear-time logic ( ltl ) semantics for runtime verification, that is, when the correctness of the system is specified by an ltl formula on its execution traces. First, we show that monitors synthesized based on the 4-valued semantics of ltl ( rv-ltl ) may result in inconsistent distributed monitoring, even for some simple ltl formulas. More generally, given any ltl formula φ, we relate the number of different verdicts required by the monitors for consistently monitoring φ, with a specific structural characteristic of φ called its alternation number . Specifically, we show that, for every k ≥ 0 , there is an ltl formula φ with alternation number k that cannot be verified at runtime by distributed monitors emitting verdicts from a set of cardinality smaller than k + 1. On the positive side, we define a family of logics, called distributed ltl (abbreviated as dltl ), parameterized by k ≥ 0, which refines rv-ltl by incorporating 2k + 4 truth values. Our main contribution is to show that, for every k ≥ 0, every ltl formula φ with alternation number k can be consistently monitored by distributed monitors, each running an automaton based on a (2 ⌈ k /2 ⌉ +4)-valued logic taken from the dltl family.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it