Products of Recursive Programs for Hypersafety Verification
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
We study the problem of automated hypersafety verification of infinite-state recursive programs . We propose an infinite class of product programs , specifically designed with recursion in mind, that reduce the hypersafety verification of a recursive program to standard safety verification. For this, we combine insights from language theory and concurrency theory to propose an algorithmic solution for constructing an infinite class of recursive product programs. One key insight is that, using the simple theory of visibly pushdown languages , one can maintain the recursive structure of syntactic program alignments which is vital to constructing a new product program that can be viewed as a classic recursive program — that is, one that can be executed on a single stack. Another key insight is that techniques from concurrency theory can be generalized to help define product programs based on the view that the parallel composition of individual recursive programs includes all possible alignments from which a sound set of alignments that faithfully preserve the satisfaction of the hypersafety property can be selected. On the practical side, we formulate a family of parametric canonical product constructions that are intuitive to programmers and can be used as building blocks to specify recursive product programs for the purpose of relational and hypersafety verification, with the idea that the right product program can be verified automatically using existing techniques. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques through an implementation and highly promising experimental results.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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