Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring is an important part of the verification toolbox, in particular in situations where exhaustive verification using, e.g., model-checking is infeasible. The goal of online monitoring is to determine the satisfaction or violation of a specification during runtime, i.e., based on finite execution prefixes. However, not every specification is amenable to monitoring, e.g., properties for which no finite execution can witness satisfaction or violation. Monitorability is the question of whether a given specification is amenable to monitoring, and has been extensively studied in discrete time. Here, we study the monitorability problem for real-time properties expressed as Timed Automata. For specifications given by deterministic Timed Muller Automata, we prove decidability while we show that the problem is undecidable for specifications given by nondeterministic Timed Büchi automata. Furthermore, we refine monitorability to also determine bounds on the number of events as well as the time that must pass before monitoring the property may yield an informative verdict. We prove that for deterministic Timed Muller automata, such bounds can be effectively computed. In contrast we show that for nondeterministic Timed Büchi automata such bounds are not computable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".