arXiv preprint ·
When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Correctness feedback suppresses the very evidence that specification-completeness auditing is designed to uncover: programs that satisfy a written contract but violate intended behavior. We demonstrate this objective reversal on 12 Verus/Rust tasks across four model families under matched call budgets. Independent no-feedback discovery more than doubles certified-witness yield relative to IntentShield's corrective-feedback loop (59.0% versus 27.1%). A format-matched iterative control places the larger share of this gap in feedback content, not independent restarts. The advantage holds in every model family and survives parser repair. A separate phase-separated execution matches the aggregate yield without reusing responses; most certified witnesses also fail held-out cases. Preserving these witnesses delivers stronger specification repair: Phase-Revised contracts achieve 81.3% implementation success, versus 62.5% for IS-Revised, with Direct-Revised close behind. Both no-feedback witness sources substantially outperform weakened contracts. The effect does not reproduce in the available Dafny and Lean evaluations, establishing an empirical boundary around the studied Verus/Rust workflow. Completeness auditing and correctness repair have opposing immediate objectives. Preserve and certify the admitted failure before repairing it.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.