Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus

Summary

arXiv:2610.20676v1 Announce Type: new 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 wi…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Adarsh Agrawal (Independent Researcher)
When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 14 Oct 2026]

Title:When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus

View a PDF of the paper titled When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus, by Adarsh Agrawal (Independent Researcher)

View PDF HTML (experimental)

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.

Comments: Paper accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on AI for Verifiable Coding

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.20676 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.20676v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20676

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Adarsh Agrawal [view email] [v1] Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:43:24 UTC (1,388 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled When Correctness Feedback Erases Evidence: Phase-Separated Completeness Auditing in Verus, by Adarsh Agrawal (Independent Researcher)

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Ancillary-file links:

Ancillary files (details):

README.md

camera_ready_results.json

make_camera_ready_figures.py

source_manifest.json

validate_arxiv.py

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.20676v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Correctness feedback suppresses the very evidence that specification-completeness auditing is designed to uncover: programs that sa…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.