Mixed-semantics composition of statecharts for the component-based design of reactive systems
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
Abstract The increasing complexity of reactive systems can be mitigated with the use of components and composition languages in model-driven engineering. Designing composition languages is a challenge itself as both practical applicability (support for different composition approaches in various application domains), and precise formal semantics (support for verification and code generation) have to be taken into account. In our Gamma Statechart Composition Framework, we designed and implemented a composition language for the synchronous, cascade synchronous and asynchronous composition of statechart-based reactive components. We formalized the semantics of this composition language that provides the basis for generating composition-related Java source code as well as mapping the composite system to a back-end model checker for formal verification and model-based test case generation. In this paper, we present the composition language with its formal semantics, putting special emphasis on design decisions related to the language and their effects on verifiability and applicability. Furthermore, we demonstrate the design and verification functionality of the composition framework by presenting case studies from the cyber-physical system domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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