The paper introduces DRAGO, a framework that repairs formal specifications generated by large language models (LLMs) using deterministic, formalism‑specific diagnosis instead of ungrounded LLM critiques. DRAGO selectively rewrites specifications only when the diagnosed error weight decreases, reducing regressions from 11.8% to 1.3% and improving answer accuracy by 12.9 percentage points over zero‑shot formalization and 8.7 percentage points over LLM‑diagnostic repair across five benchmarks. Additionally, the authors identified and corrected rendering defects in Planetarium that caused half of its floor‑tile split instances to be inconsistent with reference formalizations.
arXiv:2602. 15983v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural language into optimization code, but silent failures pose a critical risk: code that executes and returns solver-feasible solutions may encode semantically incorrect formulations---a feasibility--correctness gap reaching 90 percentage points on compositional problems.
arXiv:2608. 08786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct.
arXiv:2603. 05290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood.
arXiv:2605. 23965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain.
arXiv:2601.20055v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite the syntactic fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring their logical correctness in high-stakes domains remains a fundamenta...
The paper introduces Program Executability Prediction (PrEx), a task that asks large language models (LLMs) to determine whether a program is semantically valid or invalid and, if invalid, to identify the violated formal rule. To evaluate this, the authors create a dataset of systematically generated invalid programs derived from valid ones and test open‑source coding LLMs across different semantic formalisms, semantic shifts, and program splits (human‑written, LLM‑translated, fuzzer‑generated). Results show that LLMs rely more on pre‑training priors than on the provided semantics, performing poorly on modified semantics and with increasing program complexity.
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:2604. 27960v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive reasoning milestones but continue to struggle with high computational costs, logical inconsistencies, and sharp performance degradation on high-complexity problems.
arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.
Detecting Inconsistencies in Model Specifications with LLM-as-Verifier Reasoning introduces VeriSpec, a method that audits natural‑language model specifications directly using an LLM as a verifier. VeriSpec extracts structured rules, builds a topic‑guided graph to cluster related rules, and applies LLM‑based reasoning to find inconsistencies. In a case study on the OpenAI Model Spec, it identified 405 rules, validated five inconsistencies, and outperformed five baselines with the highest precision and lowest cost per validated inconsistency.
arXiv:2608.30256v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Logical reasoning with large language models (LLMs) is a critical capability, as it reflects a system's ability to correctly deduce hypotheses from a...
arXiv:2606. 29493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof.