Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce Flux, which shows how logical refinements can work hand in glove with Rust's ownership mechanisms to yield ergonomic type-based verification of low-level pointer manipulating programs. First, we design a novel refined type system for Rust that indexes mutable locations, with pure (immutable) values that can appear in refinements, and then exploits Rust's ownership mechanisms to abstract sub-structural reasoning about locations within Rust's polymorphic type constructors, while supporting strong updates. We formalize the crucial dependency upon Rust's strong aliasing guarantees by exploiting the Stacked Borrows aliasing model to prove that "well-borrowed evaluations of well-typed programs do not get stuck". Second, we implement our type system in Flux, a plug-in to the Rust compiler that exploits the factoring of complex invariants into types and refinements to efficiently synthesize loop annotations-including complex quantified invariants describing the contents of containers-via liquid inference. Third, we evaluate Flux with a benchmark suite of vector manipulating programs and parts of a previously verified secure sandboxing library to demonstrate the advantages of refinement types over program logics as implemented in the state-of-the-art Prusti verifier. While Prusti's more expressive program logic can, in general, verify deep functional correctness specifications, for the lightweight but ubiquitous and important verification use-cases covered by our benchmarks, liquid typing makes verification ergonomic by slashing specification lines by a factor of two, verification time by an order of magnitude, and annotation overhead from up to 24% of code size (average 14%), to nothing at all.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".