MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Tale of Two Case Studies: A Unified Exploration of Rust Verification with SEABMC

2025· article· en· W7165127355 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joseph Tafese, Siddharth Priya, Giuliano Losa, Arie Gurfinkel, Graydon Hoare

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsRust (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rust type system provides strong compile-time guarantees.However, some properties cannot be fully verified by the compiler.S pecifically,p roperties likep anic freedom and memory safety in mixed safe-unsafe code requirev erification beyond what the language enforces.We exploreh ow to verify these properties in real-world Rust code using SEABMC, a bounded model checker that ingests LLVM-IR generated by the Rust compiler.W ed emonstrate our approach throught wo case studies.In the first, we develop unit proofs forf unctional properties of four data-structurelibraries: SMALLVEC, TINYVEC, SEAV EC,a nd RESULT-TYPE from the Rust standard library.These unit proofs arec heckable by both SEABMC and KANI, as tate-of-the-art bounded model checker forR ust, and we find that SeaBMC verifies these units an order of magnitude faster than Kani.The second case study focuses on verifying panic freedom of Wasmtime'sW INCH compiler.T his applicationi s drivenb yt he requirement forh igh reliability when compiling WA SM smart-contracts in the Stellarn etwork.This case study highlights that executable counterexamples from SEABMCa re highly effective forl ocalizing issues and discovering invariants.Our main contributions are( 1) an ew tool forR ust verification which, on our benchmarks, is an order of magnitude faster than KANI,( 2) twoc ase studies with reusable benchmarking and testing infrastructure, and (3) practical guidelines stemming from our experience verifying real-world code-bases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207