Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.01386

Evidence Coverage for Intent-Bound Execution: Scope, Obligations, and Cutoff Reasoning

Mengting Wu·Lin Wang·Yong Zhang·Jiang Deng
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A verifier may authenticate every available record and still lack grounds to call an execution account complete. Such a claim requires a justified account of which records were due for the execution being assessed. We present an analytical model for retrospective coverage of declared execution-evidence obligations. Its scope binds a structured Intent, an exact Candidate, a selected analytical attempt, an execution and evidence boundary, a stage horizon, a fixed record-obligation profile, a named verifier, and an assessment cutoff. Branch and trigger premises determine obligation instances; source competence, content, integrity, and object and stage bindings determine admissibility. We distinguish closure of the obligation inventory from closure of the relevant verifier view, and define three reporting results: COMPLETE_WITHIN_SCOPE, INCOMPLETE, and UNKNOWN. These results concern current coverage of obligations due at the cutoff. Execution progress, external outcome knowledge, and historical delivery timeliness are reported separately. Constructed service-principal-disablement cases demonstrate complete dispatch and refusal branches, a due but missing final-result record, subsequent coverage after late delivery, and the limits of extending one selected attempt's coverage to all attempts. The contribution is an execution-specific composition of scope, branch, horizon, obligations, admissibility, view, and cutoff. Completeness remains conditional on the declared profile and assessment premises.

Explore related subjects

cs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mengting Wu, Lin Wang, Yong Zhang, Jiang Deng. 2026-10-01. Evidence Coverage for Intent-Bound Execution: Scope, Obligations, and Cutoff Reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01386

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelines

Large language model (LLM)-based techniques have achieved notable progress in generating harnesses for program fuzzing. However, applying them to arbitrary functions (especially internal functions) \textit{at scale} remains challenging due to the requirement of sophisticated contextual information, such as specification, dependencies, and usage examples. State-of-the-art methods heavily rely on static or incomplete context provisioning, causing failure of generating functional harnesses. Furthermore, LLMs tend to exploit harness validation metrics, producing plausible yet logically useless code. % Therefore, harness generation across large and diverse projects continues to face challenges in reliable compilation, robust code retrieval, and comprehensive validation. To address these challenges, we present HarnessAgent, a tool-augmented agentic framework that achieves fully automated, scalable harness construction over hundreds of OSS-Fuzz targets. HarnessAgent introduces three key innovations: 1) a rule-based strategy to identify and minimize various compilation errors; 2) a hybrid tool pool for precise and robust symbol source code retrieval; and 3) an enhanced harness validation pipeline that detects fake definitions. We evaluate HarnessAgent on 243 target functions from OSS-Fuzz projects (65 C projects and 178 C++ projects). It improves the three-shot success rate by approximately 20\% compared to state-of-the-art techniques, reaching 87\% for C and 81\% for C++. Our one-hour fuzzing results show that more than 75\% of the harnesses generated by HarnessAgent increase the target function coverage, surpassing the baselines by over 10\%. In addition, the hybrid tool-pool system of HarnessAgent achieves a response rate of over 90\% for source code retrieval, outperforming Fuzz Introspector by more than 30\%.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Rethinking Anonymity Claims in Synthetic Data Generation: A Model-Centric Privacy Attack Perspective

Training generative machine learning models to produce synthetic tabular data has become a popular approach for enhancing privacy in data sharing. As this typically involves processing sensitive personal information, releasing either the trained model or generated synthetic datasets can still pose privacy risks. Yet, recent research, commercial deployments, and privacy regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) largely assess anonymity at the level of an individual dataset. In this paper, we rethink anonymity claims about synthetic data from a model-centric perspective, arguing that meaningful assessments must account for the underlying generative model and be grounded in state-of-the-art privacy attacks. This perspective better reflects real-world deployments, where trained models are often accessible for interaction or querying. We interpret the GDPR's definitions of personal data and anonymization under such access assumptions to identify the identifiability risks that must be mitigated and map them to privacy attacks across threat settings. We then argue that synthetic data techniques alone do not ensure sufficient anonymization. Finally, we compare the two mechanisms most commonly used with synthetic data -- Differential Privacy (DP) and Similarity-based Privacy Metrics (SBPMs) -- and argue that while DP can offer robust protections against identifiability risks, SBPMs lack adequate safeguards. Overall, our work connects regulatory notions of identifiability with model-centric privacy attacks, enabling more responsible and trustworthy assessment of synthetic data systems by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

TensorCommitments: A Lightweight Verifiable Inference for Language Models

Most large language models (LLMs) run on external clouds: users send a prompt, pay for inference, and must trust that the remote GPU executes the LLM without any adversarial tampering. We critically ask how to achieve verifiable LLM inference, where a prover (the service) must convince a verifier (the client) that an inference was run correctly without rerunning the LLM. Existing cryptographic works are too slow at the LLM scale, while non-cryptographic ones require a strong verifier GPU. We propose TensorCommitments (TCs), a tensor-native proof-of-inference scheme. TC binds the LLM inference to a commitment, an irreversible tag that breaks under tampering, organized in our multivariate Terkle Trees. For LLaMA2, TC adds only 0.97% prover and 0.12% verifier time over inference while improving robustness to tailored LLM attacks by up to 48% over the best prior work requiring a verifier GPU.

cs.CR↗