MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986752330

On queued testing and its application to delay-insensitive systems

2003· dissertation· en· W6986752330 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationCover (algebra)System testingModel-based testingQueueing theoryRange (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis elaborates a so-called queued testing framework for input/output transition systems (IOTS) and demonstrates its applicability to delay-insensitive (DI) systems. IOTS are an appropriate model of systems with concurrent input and output, such as distributed systems and asynchronous circuits. We develop the queued testing framework based on the assumption that output of IOTS cannot be blocked. For this, a tester is separated into two independent processes: one applies stimuli and the other observes responses of a system under test through finite queues. We apply queued testing to DI systems, concurrent systems that are invariant under communication delays. As we prove, however, most DI systems are not robust, which means that not all input actions are acceptable (specified) in each state. The theorem is proved for a unified formalization of DI systems that considers a wide range of delay models: single-capacity buffers, queues, stacks, etc. To test DI systems, we extend the queued testing framework, which is originally elaborated for fully specified IOTS, to cover partially specified IOTS by preventing testers from sending unspecified input actions. Case studies in the thesis demonstrate that the extended queued testing framework is applicable to DI systems.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207