Towards Formal Reliability Analysis of Logistics Service Supply Chains using Theorem Proving
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
Logistics service supply chains (LSSCs) are composed of several nodes, with distinct behaviors, that ensure moving a product or service from a producer to consumer. Given the usage of LSSC in many safety-critical applications, such as hospitals, it is very important to ensure their reliable operation. For this purpose, many LSSC structures are modelled using Reliability Block Diagrams (RBDs) and their reliability is assessed using paper-and-pencil proofs or computer simulations. Due to their inherent incompleteness, these analysis techniques cannot ensure accurate reliability analysis results. In order to overcome this limitation, we propose to use higher-order-logic (HOL) theorem proving to conduct the RBD-based reliability analysis of LSSCs in this paper. In particular, we present the higher-order-logic formalizations of LSSNs with different and same types of capacities. As an illustrative example, we also present the formal reliability analysis of a simple three-node corporation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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