MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096963805

VaqUoT: A Tool for Vacuity Detection

2005· article· en· W7096963805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)State (computer science)Value (mathematics)Algebra over a fieldCalculus (dental)Truth value
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper presents VaqUoT – a University of Toronto tool for vacuity detection, built on top of NuSMV. In one model-checking pass, VaqUoT establishes the truth value of a CTL formula as well as the largest set of nonoverlapping subformulas in which that formula is vacuous. We describe the tool and evaluate its performance. During model-checking, properties are sometimes satisfied by models for the wrong reasons. Suppose a CTL formula ψ = AG (r ∨ y ∨ g) is checked against a model of a traffic-light controller, where atomic propositions r, y, and g stand for the colors of the light: red, yellow, and green, respectively. The formula is intended to express that in every state the light has one of these colors. This requirement may not be satisfied, even if ψ passes the check: it is possible for the model to be overconstrained so that the light always stays red. In such cases, an answer “true”, given usually by modelcheckers, is insufficient; a user needs to know why the formula is satisfied. Vacuity detection [2] can help, by determining whether some parts of the formula do not matter for the verification, i.e., are vacuous. For instance, y and g should be reported as vacuous

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207