Blame-Correct Support for Receiver Properties in Recursively-Structured Actor Contracts
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
Actor languages model concurrency as processes that communicate through asynchronous message sends. Unfortunately, as the complexity of these systems increases, it becomes more difficult to compose and integrate their components. This is because of assumptions made by components about their communication partners which may not be upheld when they remain implicit. In this paper, we bring design-by-contract programming to actor programs through a contract system that enables expressing constraints on receiver-related properties. Expressing properties about the expected receiver of a message, and about this receiver’s communication behavior, requires two novel types of contracts. Through their recursive structure, these contracts can govern entire communication chains. We implement the contract system for an actor extension of Scheme, describe it formally, and show how to assign blame in case of a contract violation. Finally, we prove our contract system and its blame assignment correct by formulating and proving a blame correctness theorem.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it