arxiv: 2605.12576 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.PL · cs.SE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Divergent Multi-Version Execution (DME): Canonical Instruction-Trace Fault Detection via Structural Address-Space Decorrelation

Petro Baran Yrievich

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 20:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.PL cs.SE

keywords divergent multi-version executionfault detectioncanonical instruction traceaddress space decorrelationredundancysemantic consistencyruntime verificationdiversified compilation

0 comments

The pith

DME detects faults by comparing address-free instruction traces from independently compiled replicas with different memory layouts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents Divergent Multi-Version Execution as a runtime verifier that catches faults traditional redundancy misses. Standard lockstep or TMR methods run identical binaries, so a single corrupted program counter or data pointer sends every replica down the same wrong path and produces silent data corruption. DME instead compiles each replica separately to create structurally different address spaces while preserving identical semantics. It then extracts canonical traces containing only opcodes, register IDs, loaded and stored values, and results, discarding any layout-dependent addresses. Comparing these traces across replicas reveals inconsistencies caused by faults of any origin.

Core claim

DME is a runtime semantic consistency verifier that detects faults by comparing canonical instruction traces (opcodes, register identifiers, loaded/stored values, results) from independently compiled replicas while discarding layout-dependent addresses.

What carries the argument

Canonical instruction traces that exclude address information, produced by structural address-space decorrelation from independent compilation of semantic equivalents.

If this is right

Correlated faults such as simultaneous PC corruption or pointer tampering become detectable instead of producing silent errors.
The same mechanism works for faults from hardware disturbance, software bugs, compilation errors, or deliberate tampering.
Redundant execution no longer requires identical binaries or layouts.
Semantic consistency can be checked at runtime without depending on physical address equality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach could be layered with existing diversity techniques to protect against both transient and persistent faults.
It opens a path to runtime detection of certain classes of compilation or optimization bugs that preserve semantics within one binary but differ across builds.
Practical deployment would require efficient trace extraction and comparison hardware or software support to keep overhead low.

Load-bearing premise

Independent compilation produces memory layouts different enough to decorrelate faults yet keeps semantics identical so address-free traces remain directly comparable.

What would settle it

A fault that alters program-counter or data-pointer values identically across all replicas despite their different layouts, producing matching but incorrect canonical traces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12576 by Petro Baran Yrievich.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Architecture. source-level function or variable is placed at significantly different absolute memory addresses across replicas. DME employs three complementary mechanisms to achieve strong address-space decorrelation: 1. Block-level diversification — functions and basic blocks are placed at different absolute addresses in each replica. Complementary branch displacement patterns are used (e.g., forward br… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Normal (fault-free) execution. Each replica’s methods, objects, and variables are relocated in memory, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: During normal execution, each replica’s method has its own return address. Stack overflow can direct all replicas to the same address, causing trace divergence: P C1 = P C2 = · · · = P CN . Simultaneous corruption of the return address in all replicas (via buffer overflow) → all PCs equal → immediate error. In NVariant Systems, this could go undetected if the address falls into the allowed region. • sou… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Address corruption in replicas may be par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Forced fragmentation of oversized blocks. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Deterministic NOP decorrelation: replica-specific offsets create minimum separation l/N, ensuring detection of correlated PC faults with |∆P C| ≥ l/N. Interpretation. Any perturbation satisfying |∆P C| ≥ l/N is guaranteed to be detected immediately. Perturbations with |∆P C| < l/N fall within an alignment window in which replicas may remain synchronized. Example. Let l = 8 bytes and N = 2, so l/N = 4 byte… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Example of compiler placement of three identical logical blocks and functions in memory. For instance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Adaptive DME layout diversification. Fine-grained instruction padding is applied only to critical program [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Traditional redundancy (lockstep, TMR) executes identical binaries with identical memory layouts. A single correlated fault - for example, an arbitrary program counter value or a perturbation delta-PC in all replicas - redirects all replicas along the same incorrect path. The same applies to corruption of data pointers. Both types of faults, regardless of their origin (deliberate tampering, software bug, compilation bug, or physical disturbance), cause silent data corruption and erroneous program execution. This work presents Divergent Multi-Version Execution (DME), a runtime semantic consistency verifier for diversified executions. Each replica is compiled independently, producing different code and data memory layouts while preserving identical semantics. Faults are detected by comparing canonical instruction traces, which include opcodes, register identifiers, loaded/stored values, and results, while discarding layout-dependent addresses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DME sketches a way to catch correlated faults by running independently compiled replicas and matching their address-stripped instruction traces, but the traces won't line up without an unstated normalization step.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is a runtime check that runs several versions of the same program, each compiled separately so their memory layouts differ, then compares the sequences of opcodes, register names, loaded values, and results while ignoring addresses. This is meant to expose faults that would otherwise hit every replica the same way in ordinary lockstep or TMR setups, such as a corrupted program counter or pointer that sends all copies down the wrong path. The idea directly targets a known weakness in current redundancy techniques for safety-critical code, and the framing of structural decorrelation through independent compilation is not something I recall from the standard TMR literature cited in the abstract. That part is worth noting as a clean conceptual move. The central difficulty is exactly the one the stress-test note flags. Independent compilation routinely produces different instruction sequences, different register allocations, and different opcode choices even when the semantics are identical. The abstract never supplies a mapping, an equivalence relation, or any extra abstraction layer that would let the canonical traces match on correct runs. Without that piece the consistency check is undefined for any real pair of diversified binaries. There are also no examples, no implementation outline, and no experimental results to show that the approach actually detects the faults it claims to catch. The work is aimed at people building fault-tolerant embedded or control systems who already know the limits of traditional redundancy. A reader in that area could get a useful starting point from the problem statement and the proposed direction. I would send it to peer review if the authors can supply the missing trace-reconciliation mechanism and some concrete validation; otherwise it stays too preliminary to evaluate properly.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Divergent Multi-Version Execution (DME) as a runtime semantic consistency verifier for diversified program executions. Each replica is compiled independently to produce different code and data memory layouts while preserving identical semantics; faults are detected by comparing canonical instruction traces (opcodes, register identifiers, loaded/stored values, and results) across replicas while discarding layout-dependent addresses, thereby avoiding the correlated faults that affect traditional lockstep or TMR redundancy.

Significance. If the central mechanism can be realized with a well-defined trace normalization that preserves exact matching for fault-free runs, DME would address a genuine limitation of conventional redundancy by decorrelating address-space faults. The absence of any implementation, evaluation, or formal argument in the current manuscript, however, leaves the practical significance undetermined.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'canonical instruction traces ... match exactly' once addresses are discarded is not supported by any description of a normalization step, equivalence relation, or abstraction layer. Independent compilation routinely produces different opcode sequences, register allocations, and instruction orders for the same semantics, so the consistency check is undefined without additional machinery.
[Abstract] Abstract: no empirical results, implementation details, or proofs are supplied to demonstrate that the proposed trace comparison actually detects the targeted faults (arbitrary PC values, pointer corruption, etc.) while producing zero false positives on correct diversified executions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive review. The manuscript presents DME as a conceptual approach to decorrelating faults through diversified compilation and canonical trace comparison. We agree that the abstract requires clarification on normalization and that the lack of implementation details limits demonstration of the claims. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'canonical instruction traces ... match exactly' once addresses are discarded is not supported by any description of a normalization step, equivalence relation, or abstraction layer. Independent compilation routinely produces different opcode sequences, register allocations, and instruction orders for the same semantics, so the consistency check is undefined without additional machinery.

Authors: We agree that the abstract's phrasing is imprecise and that the manuscript does not yet specify the normalization machinery. The intended canonical trace abstracts only layout-dependent addresses while retaining opcodes, register identifiers (via a fixed canonical register mapping), loaded/stored values, and computation results. To achieve exact matching across independently compiled replicas, an equivalence relation over instruction semantics and a normalization pass that canonicalizes register names and instruction ordering within basic blocks are required. In the revised version we will add a dedicated section (likely Section 3) that formally defines this normalization step, the equivalence relation, and the conditions under which fault-free diversified executions produce identical canonical traces. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no empirical results, implementation details, or proofs are supplied to demonstrate that the proposed trace comparison actually detects the targeted faults (arbitrary PC values, pointer corruption, etc.) while producing zero false positives on correct diversified executions.

Authors: The current manuscript is a conceptual proposal and therefore contains neither implementation nor evaluation. We acknowledge that this omission prevents direct demonstration of fault coverage and zero false positives. In the revision we will include a new section describing a prototype implementation (LLVM-based independent compilation with address-space diversification) together with initial experimental results on standard benchmarks. These results will report detection rates for injected faults of the targeted classes (PC corruption, pointer errors) and measured false-positive rates on fault-free diversified runs. We will also outline a sketch of a formal argument establishing that, under the assumption of semantically equivalent diversification, the normalized trace comparison yields zero false positives. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely conceptual description with no equations, derivations, or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The manuscript describes DME at a conceptual level, asserting that independently compiled replicas produce address-discarded canonical traces (opcodes, registers, values) that can be compared for fault detection. No equations, parameters, or formal derivations appear in the provided text. The core claim rests on the unformalized assumption that semantic equivalence survives diversification, but this is presented as a premise rather than derived from prior steps within the paper. No self-citation chains, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes are invoked, so the argument does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that independent compilation alters layouts enough to break fault correlation while preserving semantics for trace comparison.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Independent compilation produces sufficiently different memory layouts to decorrelate faults while preserving identical semantics.
Required for the trace comparison to reveal faults that would otherwise remain correlated.

invented entities (1)

DME (Divergent Multi-Version Execution) no independent evidence
purpose: Runtime verifier that uses diversified replicas and canonical traces for fault detection.
Newly introduced technique whose effectiveness is asserted without external evidence in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5437 in / 1204 out tokens · 43555 ms · 2026-05-14T20:34:05.433186+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Faults are detected by comparing canonical instruction traces, which include opcodes, register identifiers, loaded/stored values, and results — while discarding layout-dependent addresses.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Under fault-free execution, all replicas produce identical canonical traces.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

fetching a canonically equivalent instruction (prob- ability≤C/|S|),
[2]

Thus: Pstep ≤ C |S| ·ε

producing an identical result (probability≤ε). Thus: Pstep ≤ C |S| ·ε. Overksteps: Pundetected(k)≤ C |S| ·ε k . Discussion.The bound is conservative: •assumes uniform instruction distribution, •ignores control-flow constraints, •ignores state divergence amplification. In practice, detection is significantly stronger. Example.Let: •|S|= 2048, •C= 12, •ε≤2 ...

2048
[3]

alignment to the same logical instruction,
[4]

canonical equivalence,
[5]

Thus, detection follows: Pundetected(k)≤ C |S| ·ε k

identical computed results. Thus, detection follows: Pundetected(k)≤ C |S| ·ε k . 5.5 Summary of Detection Regimes •Deterministic regime:For fully correlated per- turbations with|∆P C| ≥l/N, detection is guaran- teed within one instruction. •Alignment window:For|∆P C|< l/N, replicas may remain aligned; no guarantee. •Non-correlated perturbations:Detection...
[6]

CVA6-CFI: A First Glance at RISC-V Control-Flow Integrity Extensions,

S. Manoni et al., “CVA6-CFI: A First Glance at RISC-V Control-Flow Integrity Extensions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04991, Feb. 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[7]

The N-Version Approach to Fault- Tolerant Software,

A. Avizienis, “The N-Version Approach to Fault- Tolerant Software,”IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 1985

1985
[8]

ErrorDetectionbyDuplicatedInstruc- tions (EDDI),

N.Ohetal., “ErrorDetectionbyDuplicatedInstruc- tions (EDDI),”MICRO-35, 2002

2002
[9]

SWIFT: Software Implemented Fault Tolerance,

G. A. Reis et al., “SWIFT: Software Implemented Fault Tolerance,” CGO, 2005

2005
[10]

Control-Flow Integrity,

M. Abadi et al., “Control-Flow Integrity,” CCS, 2005

2005
[11]

Experimental Analysis of the Electro- magnetic Instruction Skip Fault Model and Conse- quences for Software Countermeasures,

J.-M. Dutertre, A. Menu, O. Potin, J.-B. Rigaud, J.-L. Danger, “Experimental Analysis of the Electro- magnetic Instruction Skip Fault Model and Conse- quences for Software Countermeasures,”Microelec- tronics Reliability, 2021

2021
[12]

System structure for software fault tol- erance,

B. Randell, “System structure for software fault tol- erance,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer- ing, vol. SE-1, no. 2, pp. 220-232, June 1975

1975
[13]

Review and analysis of synthetic diversity for breaking monocultures,

J. Just and M. Cornwell, “Review and analysis of synthetic diversity for breaking monocultures,” inProc. 2004 ACM Workshop on Rapid Malcode (WORM ’04), Washington DC, USA, 2004, pp. 23- 32

2004
[14]

Low- overhead fault-tolerance technique for a dynamically reconfigurable softcore processor,

H.-M. Pham, S. Pillement, and S. J. Piestrak, “Low- overhead fault-tolerance technique for a dynamically reconfigurable softcore processor,”IEEE Transac- tions on Computers, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1202-1215, June 2013. 16

2013
[15]

Dynamic Triple Modular Re- dundancy in Interleaved Hardware Threads,

M. Barbiottia et al., “Dynamic Triple Modular Re- dundancy in Interleaved Hardware Threads,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 32456-32470, 2024

2024
[16]

The Illusion of Randomness: An Empirical Analysis of Address Space Layout Randomization Implementations,

S. Binosi et al., “The Illusion of Randomness: An Empirical Analysis of Address Space Layout Randomization Implementations,” inProc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. Computer and Communications Se- curity (CCS ’24), 2024

2024
[17]

Basic concepts and taxonomy of de- pendable and secure computing,

A. Avizienis, J. C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. Landwehr, “Basic concepts and taxonomy of de- pendable and secure computing,”IEEE Transac- tions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11-33, Jan.-March 2004

2004
[18]

Dependability in Embedded Systems: A Sur- vey of Fault Tolerance Methods and Software- Based Mitigation Techniques,

M. Amel Solouki, S. Angizi, and M. Violante, “Dependability in Embedded Systems: A Sur- vey of Fault Tolerance Methods and Software- Based Mitigation Techniques,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10509, April 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Honest to a Fault: Root-Causing Fault Attacks with Pre-Silicon RISC Pipeline Characterization,

A. A. Malik, H. Mihir, and A. Aysu, “Honest to a Fault: Root-Causing Fault Attacks with Pre-Silicon RISC Pipeline Characterization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04846, March 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Improved address space layout randomization,

“Improved address space layout randomization,” Google Patents DE112017002277T5, 2017. 17

2017