Proceedings Fifth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Autonomous 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
This EPTCS volume contains the proceedings for the Fifth International Workshop on Formal Methods for Autonomous Systems (FMAS 2023), which was held on the 15th and 16th of November 2023. FMAS 2023 was co-located with 18th International Conference on integrated Formal Methods (iFM) (iFM'22), organised by Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science of Leiden University. The workshop itself was held at Scheltema Leiden, a renovated 19th Century blanket factory alongside the canal. FMAS 2023 received 25 submissions. We received 11 regular papers, 3 experience reports, 6 research previews, and 5 vision papers. The researchers who submitted papers to FMAS 2023 were from institutions in: Australia, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Increasing our number of submissions for the third year in a row is an encouraging sign that FMAS has established itself as a reputable publication venue for research on the formal modelling and verification of autonomous systems. After each paper was reviewed by three members of our Programme Committee we accepted a total of 15 papers: 8 long papers and 7 short papers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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