MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807813222 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/651

LTL Realizability via Safety and Reachability Games

2018· article· en· W2807813222 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRealizabilityReachabilityComputer scienceBounded functionDuality (order theory)Theoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address the problem of LTL realizability and synthesis. State of the art techniques rely on so-called bounded synthesis methods, which reduce the problem to a safety game. Realizability is determined by solving synthesis in a dual game. We provide a unified view of duality, and introduce novel bounded realizability methods via reductions to reachability games. Further, we introduce algorithms, based on AI automated planning, to solve these safety and reachability games. This is the the first complete approach to LTL realizability and synthesis via automated planning. Experiments illustrate that reductions to reachability games are an alternative to reductions to safety games, and show that planning can be a competitive approach to LTL realizability and synthesis.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207