MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414783286 · doi:10.1145/3769868

The Complexity of Linear Temporal Verification for Continuous Counter Systems

2025· article· en· W4414783286 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

VenueACM Transactions on Computational Logic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear temporal logicTemporal logicFragment (logic)Constant (computer programming)Computational complexity theoryTime complexityHybrid systemLinear logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constant-rate multi-mode systems (MMSs) are hybrid systems with finitely many modes and real-valued variables that evolve over continuous time according to mode-specific constant rates. Equivalently, they correspond to continuous vector addition systems (VASs), where counters may become negative. We introduce a variant of linear temporal logic (LTL) for MMS, and we investigate the complexity of the model-checking problem for syntactic fragments of LTL. We obtain a complexity trichotomy: Each fragment is either P-complete, NP-complete, or undecidable. Since our logic can constrain the counters to remain non-negative, it further applies to continuous VAS. Thus, our results yield a framework for MMS and continuous VAS that generalizes and unify several existing results.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.344
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