Self-Spec Verifiable Code Generation
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...
arXiv:2607. 09366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Program verification is crucial for software correctness, but producing fully verified programs remains difficult in practice.
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...
arXiv:2608. 09277v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction.
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.
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: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...
arXiv:2606. 26490v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Static verification tools can assure industrial scale software, but require significant human labor to write specifications.
arXiv:2509. 21629v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Program verification relies on loop invariants, yet automatically discovering strong invariants remains a long-standing challenge.
arXiv:2607. 08981v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed.
arXiv:2606. 32007v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study agentic code generation in Dafny, where a model must generate both executable code and the proof artifacts for verification.
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.
arXiv:2607. 13303v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal contracts are essential for software testing and verification, yet writing them remains labor-intensive and error-prone.
The paper evaluates how robust large language models are at generating SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) when the underlying RTL code undergoes semantics‑preserving transformations such as operand reordering, identifier renaming, and redundant parenthesization. Using a curated dataset and two open‑source models (Qwen2.5‑Coder‑7B and DeepSeek‑Coder‑V2‑Lite), the authors find that 9.7%–27.0% of behaviors that were correct on the original RTL become incorrect after transformation, revealing significant instability that aggregate accuracy metrics can hide.