Triple
T11016328
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Program Verification: Approaches and Tools |
E260374
|
entity |
| Predicate | instanceOf |
P0
|
FINISHED |
| Object | work on program verification |
C29017
|
CONCEPT FINISHED |
How this triple was built (1 step)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
CD
Concept disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target class: work on program verification Context triple: [Program Verification: Approaches and Tools, instanceOf, work on program verification]
-
A.
formal verification technique
A formal verification technique is a mathematically rigorous method used to prove or disprove the correctness of a system’s design or implementation with respect to a specified formal specification or property.
-
B.
interactive theorem prover
An interactive theorem prover is a software system that assists users in the formalization and step-by-step verification of mathematical proofs or program properties through human-guided logical reasoning.
-
C.
proof assistant
A proof assistant is a software tool that helps users construct, check, and manage formal mathematical proofs or program correctness proofs by interacting with a rigorous logical framework.
-
D.
logic for concurrent systems
Logic for concurrent systems is a formal framework for specifying and reasoning about the behaviors, interactions, and correctness properties of systems in which multiple processes execute and communicate simultaneously.
-
E.
axiomatic semantics
Axiomatic semantics is a formal method for defining the meaning of programs by specifying logical assertions (preconditions and postconditions) that describe the behavior and correctness of program constructs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (1 batch)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69d6aa9687448190b28d353b1b6a610e |
completed | April 8, 2026, 7:20 p.m. |
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:25 p.m.