Are the Logical Foundations of Verifying Compiler Prototypes Matching user Expectations?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The verifying compiler (VC) project proposals suggest that mainstream software developers are its targeted end-users. Like other software engineering efforts, the VC project success depends on appropriate end-user consultation. Industrial use of program assertions for the purpose of run-time assertion checking (RAC) is becoming commonplace. A likely next step on the path to VC adoption is the use of assertions in extended static checking (ESC), a fully automated form of static program verification (SPV). Unfortunately, all current VC prototypes supporting SPV, adopt a semantics which is unsound relative to the standard run-time interpretation of assertions. In this article, we report on the results of a survey in which we asked industrial developers what logical semantics they want program assertions to have, and whether consistency across RAC and SPV tools is important. Survey results indicate that developers are in favor of a semantics for assertions that is compatible with their current use in RAC.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it