MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745248131 · doi:10.1145/3105908

The Logical View on Continuous Petri Nets

2017· article· en· W2745248131 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Blondin, Alain Finkel, Christoph Haase, Serge Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computational Logic · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPetri netDecidabilityReachabilityReachability problemStochastic Petri netComputer scienceProcess architectureTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous Petri nets are a relaxation of classical discrete Petri nets in which transitions can be fired a fractional number of times, and consequently places may contain a fractional number of tokens. Such continuous Petri nets are an appealing object to study, since they over-approximate the set of reachable configurations of their discrete counterparts, and their reachability problem is known to be decidable in polynomial time. The starting point of this article is to show that the reachability relation for continuous Petri nets is definable by a sentence of linear size in the existential theory of the rationals with addition and order. Using this characterization, we obtain decidability and complexity results for a number of classical decision problems for continuous Petri nets. In particular, we settle the open problem about the precise complexity of reachability set inclusion. Finally, we show how continuous Petri nets can be incorporated inside the classical backward coverability algorithm for discrete Petri nets as a pruning heuristic to tackle the symbolic state explosion problem. The cornerstone of the approach we present is that our logical characterization enables us to leverage the power of modern SMT-solvers to yield a highly performant and robust decision procedure for coverability in Petri nets. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach on a set of standard benchmarks from the literature.

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)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computational LogicSame topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207