MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982245660 · doi:10.5539/cis.v12n4p56

Model Checking of WebRTC Peer to Peer System

2019· article· en· W2982245660 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Rights Management and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWebRTCComputer sciencePromelaCorrectnessModel checkingSession (web analytics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Peer-to-peerReliability (semiconductor)ImplementationJavaScriptDistributed computingComputer networkSoftware engineeringTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of the multimedia session is crucial in the WebRTC architecture before media and data transmission. The preliminary bi-directional flow provides the network with all the information needed in order to control and manage the communication between end-users. This control includes the setup, management, and teardown of a session and the definition, and the modification of multiple features that will be enabled in the ongoing session. This is performed by a mechanism named Signaling. In this work, we will use the formal verification to increase confidence in our SDL model by checking the consistency and reliability of the WebRTC Peer to Peer system. The verification and validation are proved the most efficient tools to avoid errors and defects in the concurrent system designs. Indeed, by using model-checking techniques we will verify if the WebRTC system adheres to standards if it performs the selected functions in the correct manner. To achieve that, we will first translate the SDL model to an intermediate format IF that will be retranslated to a Promela Model. Second, using the SPIN model checker, we will verify the general correctness of the model before checking if the desired properties are satisfied using the Linear Temporal Logic (LTL).

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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