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: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: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...
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:2604.00280v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Formal specifications play a central role in ensuring software reliability, yet automatically synthesizing high-quality specifications remain...
arXiv:2606. 31002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Theorem-proving benchmarks evaluate proof search against fixed formal statements, but natural-language-to-Lean formalization must generate the formal statement itself.
The paper surveys how large language models (LLMs) are being used in hardware verification, covering tasks such as assertion generation, testbench creation, bug localization, and formal reasoning. It categorizes the literature by methodology, verification goal, tool interaction, benchmarks, and evaluation metrics, and distinguishes between inference-time techniques (prompting, retrieval, structured reasoning, agentic workflows) and training-time adaptation. The authors highlight that LLMs excel as semantic reasoning, search, and orchestration components within verification workflows, yet emphasize the need for semantic alignment, scalable integration, generalization, and rigorous evaluation to ensure true verification correctness.
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.
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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 09366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Program verification is crucial for software correctness, but producing fully verified programs remains difficult in practice.
VeriPhy is an auditable physical‑verification system that transforms a text prompt into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any video frames are generated. During execution, it gates calls to frozen low‑level experts (segmentation, tracking, counting, depth, OCR, audio‑event detection, etc.) and records provenance‑carrying evidence for each action. The system maps these records to a three‑valued state—supported, contradicted, or unknown—providing traceable verdicts that can be used to refine generation models.
arXiv:2602. 09464v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications.