arXiv preprint ·
When Does a Cross-Device Run Justify PASS? Obligation-Level Evidence Qualification under Partial Observability
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
A cross-device test can complete every command yet judge a business claim from evidence belonging to another device or attempt. We introduce an executable evidence contract that makes support qualification an explicit stage before predicate evaluation. It binds each obligation to admissible subjects, episodes, objects and observation scopes, and records unresolved support rather than treating an apparently successful observation as proof. We evaluate two implemented parts of the contract. A prospectively specified, 12-seed controlled study isolates association under reused identifiers across 2,304 claims. Given identical records and business policy, Atomic-Facts Flat produces 160 false PASS and 76.30% PASS recall; supplying computed associations reduces false PASS to five and increases PASS recall to 99.09%. Deterministic Closure produces zero false PASS and 100.00% PASS recall, improving on Atomic Flat in 11 seeds with one tie (two-sided sign p=0.00098). Most of the benefit comes from explicit association rather than graph notation. A separate prospective field characterization spans four workflows, 40 physical episodes and 80 claims. Against frozen reference labels, the physical-evidence verifier attains 95.00% accuracy and 100.00% PASS recall (27/27), with three false PASS judgments. The field results are descriptive: a policy-input mismatch prevents the planned matched-policy comparison, and post-hoc sensitivity does not establish superiority over a policy-informed textual baseline. Together, the studies characterize qualification on physical evidence and isolate the value of explicit association under a controlled matching contract.
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 Software Engineering
DARE: Difficulty Analysis for Repair Enhancement
How Should Agents See Code? Rethinking Code Representations for Agentic Software Engineering
A Hybrid Approach for Automated Security Pattern Recovery
Code, Commits, and Complexity in the GenAI Era: A Longitudinal Study of Team-Based Capstone Projects
Can LLM Agents Learn to Test? Maintaining Scoped Experience as Testing Evidence for Mobile GUI Testing
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering 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.