MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616942550 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2017.7934785

Formalization of Birth-Death and IID processes in higher-order logic

2017· article· en· W2616942550 on OpenAlexaff
Liya Liu, Osman Hasan, Sofiène Tahar

Bibliographic record

Venue2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical proofTheoretical computer scienceProcess calculusMarkov processState spaceMarkov chainScalabilityModel checkingFormal methodsProbabilistic logicAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markov chains are extensively used in the modeling and analysis of engineering and scientific problems. Usually, paper-and-pencil proofs, simulation or computer algebra software are used to analyze Markovian models. However, these techniques either are not scalable or do not guarantee accurate results, which are vital in safety-critical systems. Probabilistic model checking has been proposed to formally analyze Markovian systems, but it suffers from the inherent state-explosion problem and unacceptable long computation times. Higher-order-logic theorem proving has been recently used to overcome the above-mentioned limitations but it lacks any support for discrete Birth-Death process and Independent and Identically Distributed (IID) random process, which are frequently used in many system analysis problems. In this paper, we formalize these notions using formal Discrete-Time Markov Chains (DTMC) with finite state-space and classified DTMCs in higher-order logic theorem proving. To demonstrate the usefulness of the formalizations, we present the formal performance analysis of two software applications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207