MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233326341 · doi:10.1109/cdc.1995.479065

Macro control languages and decision procedures for COCOLOG

2002· article· en· W4233326341 on OpenAlexaff
C. Martinez-Mascarua, P.E. Caines

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)SimplicityRepresentation (politics)MacroComputer scienceControl (management)Action (physics)Set (abstract data type)Control systemFragment (logic)Automatic controlMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmProgramming languagePure mathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The control of a discrete event system is handled in the COCOLOG logic control system by use of an extra-logical representation of the control laws in terms of conditional control rules; these are condition-action pairs in which the conditions are mutually exclusive and exhaustive formulas in the language (L/sub k/) at the instant k. Such formulas are tested for deducibility from Th/sub k/, the current control theory, and once the unique deducible formula is found, the associated control action is applied to the system. The simplicity of L/sub k/ leads to even the most basic concepts having a complex expression as well formed formulas in L/sub k/. Furthermore, the triggering of elementary control actions often depends upon complex nested sets of conditional control formulas expressed in L/sub k/. In response to this set of problems, this article presents the foundations for: 1) a theory of the expression of complex predicates and functions in terms of simple macro language symbols which can be defined in an extended language L/sub k//sup +/; and 2) the construction of recursive systems of simple macro actions to express complex control actions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207