arXiv:2606. 06133v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ is a formal specification language for verifying distributed systems and safety-critical protocols.
arXiv:2607. 23425v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly write TLA$^{+}$ formal specifications from natural-language descriptions, but progress is hard to measure: existing resources grade by resemblance to a reference or by whether the output parses, neither of which shows correctness.
arXiv:2608.21962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate register-transfer-level (RTL) designs from natural-language specifications. However, a...
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: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: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:2607. 03957v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models can reach the right normative verdict for the wrong reason.
arXiv:2607. 29431v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly generate optimization models from natural language, but existing evaluation often reduces a generated model and its ground truth to a single equivalent/not-equivalent verdict or an execution-success rate--labels that are neither independently checkable nor faithful to the multiple distinct senses in which two formulations can agree.
arXiv:2603. 15510v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The synthesis of inductive loop invariants remains a critical bottleneck in automated program verification.
SemVerBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models (LLMs) understand and apply version-constraint resolution semantics, such as determining whether a version satisfies constraints like ^1.2.3 or >=2.0. The study finds that many models struggle with certain corner cases, with GPT‑5.1 performing poorly while Claude and Opus perform much better. The authors suggest that the failures stem from an activation/application gap rather than a lack of knowledge, and recommend that coding agents delegate version resolution to a dedicated resolver tool.
arXiv:2606. 19808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes.
arXiv:2601. 22758v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model agents repeatedly encounter related tasks, yet systems that learn from trajectories commit every lesson to one predefined artifact form.
arXiv:2607. 16646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models now translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, but they fail silently.