A formal approach to rigorous development of critical 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 Safety critical systems, such as medical, automotive, and avionics systems, play an important role in our daily lives. Increasing demand for new technologies in these safety critical systems requires rapid adoption of commercial hardware and software. However, the adoption of new hardware and software increases life‐threatening vulnerabilities. To aid in the reduction of these vulnerabilities and system failures, this paper proposes a framework based on formal methods for developing safety‐critical systems from requirements analysis to code generation. This framework includes a development process for documenting system requirements using tabular expressions, automatic formal model generation from the documented requirements, verification and validation of the generated formal models using proof techniques and animations, interactive simulation for validating the required behavior of the developed models by enabling domain experts to observe the system states according to, and finally, code generation from the formal model into a desired language. A prototype toolchain is developed to automate this framework. An assessment of the proposed framework is undertaken through a case study: insulin infusion pump (IIP).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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