arXiv:2607. 10291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Software evolves continuously, yet ensuring that a patch preserves intended behavior without re-verifying an entire codebase remains difficult.
arXiv:2602. 09464v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications.
arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
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: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.
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.
arXiv:2608. 04611v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier coding models now match or exceed strong human reference points on programming benchmarks, yet benchmark success does not imply maintainable software.
Spec‑Harness evaluates how well large language models (LLMs) synthesize Java Modeling Language (JML) specifications by measuring behavioral adequacy across precondition and postcondition correctness and completeness. The study shows that while prompt optimization can raise verifier pass rates, many accepted specifications remain behaviorally weak, either over‑ or under‑constraining inputs and outputs. Spec‑Harness also serves as a feedback mechanism that improves the quality of specifications generated by general‑purpose coding agents and a specialized JML agent.
arXiv:2606. 06240v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Persistent memory for an LLM agent is a write-heavy substrate: every belief update is a versioned write, and a new claim may contradict a stored one.
arXiv:2605. 27784v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM agents are governed by long-lived prompt policies, where individually reasonable stand- ing rules can jointly govern the same pre- generation state.
arXiv:2607. 25364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales.
arXiv:2609.16302v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a coding agent returns to existing software, it inherits evidence from earlier engineering work: tests, type checks, proofs, static analyses, an...
The paper examines how large‑language‑model (LLM) decompilers, which produce clean, idiomatic C code, are currently evaluated mainly on recompilability and passing shipped tests. It shows that these metrics can mask significant behavioral differences: a decompiled function may recompile and pass all tests yet diverge on other inputs or lose disclosed vulnerabilities. To address this, the authors propose Decompile‑Diverge, a behavioral oracle that synthesizes drivers, fuzzes inputs, and compares the decompiled code’s behavior to the original, revealing divergences in up to 13% of cases and exposing gaps in current evaluation suites.