Proceedings Seventh International Workshop on Formal Methods for Autonomous Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This EPTCS volume contains the papers from the Seventh International Workshop on Formal Methods for Autonomous Systems (FMAS 2025), which was held between the 17th and 19th of November 2025. The goal of the FMAS workshop series is to bring together leading researchers who are using formal methods to tackle the unique challenges that autonomous systems present, so that they can publish and discuss their work with a growing community of researchers. FMAS 2025 was co-located with the 20th International Conference on integrated Formal Methods (iFM'25), hosted by Inria Paris, France at the Inria Paris Center. In total, FMAS 2025 received 16 submissions from researchers at institutions in: Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. Though we received fewer submissions than last year, we are encouraged to see the submissions being sent from a wide range of countries. Submissions come from both past and new FMAS authors, which shows us that the existing community appreciates the network that FMAS has built over the past 7 years, while new authors also show the FMAS community's great potential of growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.024 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".