Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.34871

Certified Compilation in the TELEPERM XS Nuclear Safety I&C Platform

Alexandre Berard·Richard B. Kreckel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The large safety instrumentation & control (I&C) systems in civil nuclear power plants (NPPs) are mainly safe-shutdown systems (reactor protection) or limitation and control systems. Framatome's established TELEPERM XS (TXS Core) product family is a digital I&C system platform to cover all these applications. We illustrate the role of verification in the different stages of the software production toolchain, focus on the formal compilation process, and discuss the contribution of the CompCert certified compiler to the safety case of the product. Scrutinizing the object code produced by this compiler has exhibited suboptimal run-time performance in a certain simple but recurring generated code pattern. We explain how formal methods allow us to address this issue in the compiler while simultaneously reducing its trusted computing base (TCB), thereby strengthening the safety case rather than merely preserving it.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexandre Berard, Richard B. Kreckel. 2026-09-28. Certified Compilation in the TELEPERM XS Nuclear Safety I&C Platform. https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.452.7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Specification Before Generation: A Pre-Registered, Five-Model Paired Evaluation of a Specification Frame for LLM-Generated Code in Money, Time, Idempotency, and Access Tasks

Code generated by large language models passes security checks at a rate that has barely moved in four years. In regulated backends, the defect classes that matter most are money arithmetic, time handling, retry safety, and access control. Teams answer with instruction files, yet the largest controlled study of instruction files we are aware of found no general benefit. This paper tests a narrower idea: generated code improves when the prompt carries a specification, a fixed preamble stating what must be true of the result. We pre-registered hypotheses, refuters, analysis code, and a one-shot generation rule, then ran 50 realistic backend tasks from finance, healthcare, and insurance practice through five frontier models from five vendor lineages, each task twice: bare, and preceded by a 267-word filled specification frame. Nine deterministic AST-based checkers scored the outputs. The Bandit security scanner, which knows nothing of the frame, scored them independently. The frame reduced defects in all five models (mean reduction 0.16 to 0.70 findings per task, every Holm-adjusted sign test significant, every bootstrap confidence interval excluding zero). Where the arms differed, the frame arm won 95 of 100 times. It never made any model worse in any domain. Bandit found 53 medium-or-high issues in the bare arm and 11 in the frame arm, in the same direction for every model. The effect was largest where a model's unprompted defaults were weakest: the frame supplies the discipline a model lacks. All 500 outputs, prompts, checkers, scoring code, and the pre-registration are published with a DOI, so any team can re-derive the result without trusting the author.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Adaptive-GEPA: Make Your Harness Fit Heterogeneous Requests

Reflective optimizers such as GEPA improve language model prompts from execution traces and evaluator feedback; full-program extensions can also rewrite tools and control flow. In practice, a user hands the same endpoint heterogeneous requests whose effective solutions require different tools, reasoning modes, and control flow. Optimizing one shared program leaves this division of work implicit in source-code search, while optimizing a separate program per request family fixes it beforehand. We introduce Adaptive-GEPA, which learns both how to divide requests and how to solve them. It evolves a router and a library of specialist programs under one search budget. The router's instructions, each specialist's description, and its program code are plain, human-readable text, edited from feedback. To combine branches, it aligns specialists by the requests they handle and inherits descriptions together with programs. On a fixed mixture of four task families, the reported Qwen3-8B run evolves four experts without supplying family labels to the router or reflection model; its routing matches the task partition on all 651 test requests. Its family-mean test score (x100) rises from 52.6 to 70.6, compared with 62.5 for GEPA's full-program adapter and 54.0 for GRPO at a nominal budget of 18,000 scored calls. These counts do not equate total compute. Figure 1 summarizes the learning curves, final test scores, and routing agreement.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Toward Quantum Software Automation: A Quantum-Aware Harness for LLM-Guided Evolution

Quantum software is critical for improving the efficiency and reliability of scarce quantum hardware. However, its design still relies heavily on ad-hoc, handcrafted heuristics that are often suboptimal and quickly become obsolete as quantum hardware evolves. LLM-guided evolutionary search offers a promising way to automatically explore complex software designs, but existing search frameworks lack the quantum-specific support needed for efficient evolution: verification is expensive, feedback is sparse, and heterogeneous quantum programs require different optimization objectives. In this paper, we present QSA, a quantum-aware harness for LLM-guided evolutionary search toward automating quantum software design. QSA equips the search with three forms of quantum-specific guidance: an evolution-hardness-guided coreset and approximate scoring to reduce verification cost, static and snapshot analyses to provide fine-grained execution context, and task-specific rewards for compiler passes and runtime policies. We evaluate QSA on the IBM Quantum platform across three benchmark suites. For multiprogramming, QSA improves QPU utilization by 4.2%-9.5% and Hellinger fidelity by 15.2%-19.5% over the state of the art. For error mitigation, QSA reduces mitigation time by at least 96.8% while achieving comparable or better fidelity. These gains require only $6.9 in LLM API cost over 11.3 hours.

cs.SE↗