MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617541639 · doi:10.1145/3019612.3019827

Runtime verification of LTL on lossy traces

2017· article· en· W2617541639 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundnessRuntime verificationComputer scienceLossy compressionTRACE (psycholinguistics)Linear temporal logicTemporal logicReal-time computingProgramming languageFormal verificationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Runtime verification techniques mostly assume the existence of complete execution traces. However, real-world systems often produce lossy traces due to network issues, partial instrumentation, sampling, and logging failures. A few verification techniques have recently emerged to handle systems with incomplete traces. Some of these techniques sacrifice soundness and may produce imprecise verdicts. The others depend on the recovery of lost events for a sound and meaningful verdict. In this paper, we present an offline algorithm that identifies whether an Ltl (Linear Temporal Logic) formula can be soundly monitored in the presence of a transient loss of events in a trace and constructs a monitor accordingly. More, we introduce the concept of monotonicity to express the persistence of the verdicts of a loss-tolerant monitor regardless of the recovery of the lost events. Our evaluation demonstrates the applicability, efficiency and practicality of the technique on common Ltl patterns, but also on traces from Google Clusters and MPlayer.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207