MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155827701 · doi:10.1007/s10703-021-00367-3

Towards efficient verification of population protocols

2021· article· en· W3155827701 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

VenueFormal Methods in System Design · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceDecidabilityReachabilityProtocol (science)Theoretical computer sciencePetri netPopulationReachability problemFormal verificationModel checkingComputational complexity theoryDistributed computingAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Population protocols are a well established model of computation by anonymous, identical finite-state agents. A protocol is well-specified if from every initial configuration, all fair executions of the protocol reach a common consensus. The central verification question for population protocols is the well-specification problem : deciding if a given protocol is well-specified. Esparza et al. have recently shown that this problem is decidable, but with very high complexity: it is at least as hard as the Petri net reachability problem, which is -hard, and for which only algorithms of non-primitive recursive complexity are currently known. In this paper we introduce the class $${ WS}^3$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>WS</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> of well-specified strongly-silent protocols and we prove that it is suitable for automatic verification. More precisely, we show that $${ WS}^3$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>WS</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> has the same computational power as general well-specified protocols, and captures standard protocols from the literature. Moreover, we show that the membership and correctness problems for $${ WS}^3$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>WS</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> reduce to solving boolean combinations of linear constraints over $${\mathbb {N}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>N</mml:mi> </mml:math> . This allowed us to develop the first software able to automatically prove correctness for all of the infinitely many possible inputs.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.316 · 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