The paper presents a unified dataset of 350 Lean tasks to evaluate specification generation (SpecGen) for verifiable code, combining metrics of formal validity, reference similarity, equivalence, and behavioural adequacy. It highlights that restricting similarity measures to a subset of tasks can shift rankings, and shows that a perfect postcondition score can still miss critical input coverage, underscoring the need for separate feedback on input and output constraints.
By Srijith Nair, Aditya Vempaty, Jia Liu, Ashish Jagmohan
arXiv:2610.17358v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Formal verification proves that a program satisfies its specification, but says nothing about whether the specification captures what the author mean...
By Martin Amster, One An, Holly Baker, Fernanda Graciolli, Simon Henniger, Nada Amin
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.
By Zenan Li, Ziran Yang, Peiyang Song, Zhaoyu Li, Kaiyu Yang
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
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.
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: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
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: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.
By Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Siddharth Bhat, Stella Biderman
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. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
By Junyu Ren