arXiv:2608. 19009v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly paired with verifiers (step checkers, self-consistency filters, tool-based fact checkers, formal proof assistants) that claim to detect the model's errors.
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: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:2608.28725v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors, but most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final...
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.
LogicSkills is a benchmark designed to isolate three core logical abilities in large language models: formal symbolization, countermodel construction, and validity assessment. The dataset draws items from the two-variable fragment of first‑order logic without identity, presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce‑word language, and all instances are solver‑verified with Z3. Results show that conventional instruction‑tuned LLMs excel at validity assessment but struggle with symbolization and countermodel construction, whereas recent reasoning‑tuned models perform well across all tasks, indicating a more systematic logical skill profile.
arXiv:2607. 29549v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have demonstrated strong mathematical problem-solving capabilities, yet reliably verifying their candidate answers remains challenging.
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2609.38409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable r...
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.
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.
arXiv:2606. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present HierSVA, an integrated suite that combines a pipeline, dataset, and benchmark for LLM-driven hierarchical hardware formal verification.
The paper introduces RAINFALL, a neuro‑symbolic framework that generates ranking functions for proving loop termination by treating synthesis as a code‑completion task with placeholders and verifying the output with a symbolic checker. RAINFALL achieves a 90.22% success rate on 358 terminating C programs, outperforming existing baselines and boosting overall performance to 96.65% when combined with PROTON 2.1. The study also demonstrates the importance of placeholder contracts, few‑shot examples, symbolic verification, and diagnostic feedback across multiple LLMs.