AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software.
arXiv:2608. 13522v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code.
By Zhe Ye, Hantao Lou, Yuechun Sun, Peiyang Song, Zhengxu Yan, Timothe Kasriel, Qingyang Zhang, Kaiyu Yang, Soonho Kong, Jingxuan He, Dawn Song
arXiv:2609.21190v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Ensuring the correctness of LLM-generated code is a core challenge for modern software engineering. Benchmarks for agentic code generation check corr...
By George Ma, Benjamin Mikek, Haoyu Li, Ferhat Erata, Yuhao Zhang, Zeren Shui, Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani, Jun Huan, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Somayeh Sojoudi, Hao Zhou, Anoop Deoras
arXiv:2609.39568v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) may generate unreliable code on corner cases missed by testing, while formal verification can provide machine-checkable...
By Jiaru Qian, Yihong Dong, Yongmin Li, Hao Zhu, Bin Gu, Ge Li
arXiv:2602. 09464v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications.
By Haoyu Zhao, Ziran Yang, Jiawei Li, Deyuan He, Zenan Li, Chi Jin, Venugopal V. Veeravalli, Aarti Gupta, Sanjeev Arora
arXiv:2607. 06341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort.
By Shuangxiang Kan, Shuanglong Kan, Sebastian Ertel
Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) promise to generate these proofs automatically, yet existing approaches wire a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it (retrieving premises and predicting tactics one step at a time, or splitting goals by divide-and-conquer), and still prove only a fraction of their target theorems.
arXiv:2607. 09366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Program verification is crucial for software correctness, but producing fully verified programs remains difficult in practice.
By Shirley Yu, Ruben Martins
arXiv:2607. 04631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The cost of producing code is rapidly diminishing with increasingly capable AI agents, while quality assurance of generated programs has not kept pace.
By Gabriel Poesia, Simon Henniger, Tzu-Han Hsu, Yilun Du, Nada Amin
arXiv:2512. 02080v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The integration of Formal Verification tools with Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a path to scale software verification beyond manual workflows.
By Pierre Dantas, Lucas Cordeiro, Youcheng Sun, Waldir Junior
E2E-SWE is a benchmark that tests large language models’ ability to create complete, functional software repositories from scratch. It includes 186 tasks across 11 programming languages, each requiring an agent to build an installable project based solely on a natural‑language specification and an empty workspace, while passing a hidden test suite. The benchmark was crafted by software engineers and LLMs, then refined through iterative verification by autonomous agents to ensure clarity and solvability.
By Hantian Ding, Chloe Bi, Jiacheng Zhu, John Yang, Matt Deitke, Pengcheng Yin, Zijian Wang, Rui Hou
arXiv:2602.18307v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-b...
By Yutong Xin, Qiaochu Chen, Greg Durrett, I\c{s}il Dillig