arXiv Machine Learning

Can LLMs Write Correct TLA+ Specifications? Evaluating Natural-Language-to-TLA+ Generation

arXiv:2606. 05792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

Predicting Program Exit Code with LLMs and Programming Language Semantics

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.

By Lara Marinov, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa, Junyi Jessy Li, Milos Gligoric
arXiv AI
Sep 10

HoarePrompt: Structural Reasoning About Program Correctness in Natural Language

HoarePrompt is a new method that applies program verification concepts to natural language requirements, using large language models to generate step‑by‑step natural language descriptions of program states. It incorporates a few‑shot k‑induction technique to handle loops and then evaluates whether the annotated program satisfies the requirements. On the CoCoClaNeL dataset, HoarePrompt raises the Matthews correlation coefficient by 61% over zero‑shot chain‑of‑thought prompts and by 106% over test‑generation classifiers, with the inductive reasoning component adding a 26% MCC improvement.

By Dimitrios Stamatios Bouras, Yihan Dai, Tairan Wang, Yingfei Xiong, Sergey Mechtaev
arXiv AI
Aug 18

ReLoop: Structured Modeling and Behavioral Verification for Reliable LLM-Based Optimization

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.

By Junbo Jacob Lian, Yujun Sun, Huiling Chen, Chaoyu Zhang, Hanzhang Qin, Chung-Piaw Teo
arXiv AI
Jun 8

SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human Preference

arXiv:2510. 07315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check.

By Ming Zhong, Xiang Zhou, Ting-Yun Chang, Qingze Wang, Nan Xu, Xiance Si, Dan Garrette, Shyam Upadhyay, Jeremiah Liu, Jiawei Han, Benoit Schillings, Jiao Sun
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 28

Benchmarking LLMs for Verilog Design Flows

arXiv:2607. 22759v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, but their capabilities to produce correct, synthesizable hardware description language (HDL) code still remain to be properly benchmarked.

By Angshuman Chakravertty, Rahul Koshti, Buddhi Prakash Sharma, Vinay Chamola
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

Beyond Output Correctness: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Language Model Reasoning in Coding Tasks

The paper introduces CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for assessing large language model reasoning quality across coding tasks such as generation, summarization, and classification. It analyzes over a thousand mismatches from existing evaluators, identifies recurring limitations, and derives design insights that lead to a new two‑stage evaluator, VERA. Experiments show VERA outperforms strong baselines, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21 on four datasets.

By Yuangang Li, Justin Tian Jin Chen, Ethan Yu, David Hong, Iftekhar Ahmed
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Which LLM is Best for Translating Natural Language Goals to PDDL

The paper evaluates how well current Large Language Models can translate natural language goals, written by video game testers, into well‑formed PDDL targets for classical planning. Using a carefully designed prompt template, six state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested on correctness, speed, and error tendencies with real‑world benchmarks. All models achieved high correctness (>92%), with Gemini 2.5 Flash reaching 96% accuracy and the fewest false positives, while GPT‑4.1 was the fastest, yet differences in performance and occasional failures due to ambiguity and domain limits remain.

By Tomas Balyo, Lukas Chrpa, G. Michael Youngblood