MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392617628 · doi:10.1145/3649859

Message-Observing Sessions

2024· article· en· W4392617628 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Kavanagh, Brigitte Pientka

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrinciple of compositionalityComputer scienceSoundnessSession (web analytics)Semantics (computer science)Programming languageTheoretical computer scienceMessage passingProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Most, a process language with message-observing session types. Message-observing session types extend binary session types with type-level computation to specify communication protocols that vary based on messages observed on other channels. Hence, Most allows us to express global invariants about processes, rather than just local invariants, in a bottom-up, compositional way. We give Most a semantic foundation using traces with binding, a semantic approach for compositionally reasoning about traces in the presence of name generation. We use this semantics to prove type soundness and compositionality for Most processes. We see this as a significant step towards capturing message-dependencies and providing more precise guarantees about processes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207