MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Logical Characterization of Coherent Uninterpreted Programs

2021· article· en· W7165114067 on OpenAlexafffund
Hari Govind V K, Sharon Shoham, Arie Gurfinkel

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Science FoundationUnited States-Israel Binational Science FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Algebra over a fieldLogical conjunctionComponent (thermodynamics)Scheme (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Mathematical logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An uninterpreted program (UP) is a program whose semantics is defined over the theory of uninterpreted functions.This is a common abstraction used in equivalence checking, compiler optimization, and program verification.While simple, the model is sufficiently powerful to encode counter automata, and, hence, undecidable.Recently, a class of UP programs, called coherent, has been proposed and shown to be decidable.We provide an alternative, logical characterization, of this result.Specifically, we show that every coherent program is bisimilar to a finite state system.Moreover, an inductive invariant of a coherent program is representable by a formula whose terms are of depth at most 1.We also show that the original proof, via automata, only applies to programs over unary uninterpreted functions.While this work is purely theoretical, it suggests a novel abstraction that is complete for coherent programs but can be soundly used on arbitrary uninterpreted (and partially interpreted) programs.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207