MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Statistical Model Checking based Analysis of Fault Trees and Power Consumption to Enhance Autonomous Systems Reliability

2023· article· en· W4385624965 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault tree analysisReliability engineeringRedundancy (engineering)Computer sciencePower consumptionReliability (semiconductor)Component (thermodynamics)Model checkingProbability modelStatistical modelPower (physics)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a fault tree analysis (FTA) method is proposed that can not only evaluate the failure risk of autonomous systems but also their power consumption over time. The suggested technique relies on FTA and statistical model checking (SMC). After evaluating the probability of system failure and the power consumption of system components, the optimal risk mitigation techniques can be determined considering the duration of the mission. To demonstrate the methodology, the causes of mission failure in a typical drone are examined. After identifying the critical sources of mission failure, a number of risk mitigation techniques based on component redundancy are evaluated to investigate their potential to lower the probability of system failure.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.314 · 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