arXiv AI

How Stable Are LLM-Generated Proofs Under Program Refactoring? A Stress Test for Verifiable Code Generation

The paper introduces RefactorProof, a benchmark that tests whether proofs generated for code remain valid after program refactoring that preserves behavior. Using 458 Lean-certified variants derived from 185 VERINA tasks, the study finds that structural refactorings expose brittleness in proofs, with task-normalized structural PSR ranging from 4.3% for supplied references to 13.3–26.8% for specialized provers. Despite higher failure rates, specialized prover proofs (DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B, Goedel-Prover-V2-32B, Goedel-Prover-V2-8B) show significantly higher unchanged-proof survival compared to reference artifacts, and many failures can be repaired with minimal edits.

arXiv AI
Oct 19

Repair, Retry, and the Cost of Hindsight: Verifier Feedback in Formal Theorem Proving

The paper investigates how verifier feedback influences self‑repair in formal theorem proving. Using controlled one‑step experiments on Lean with frozen Qwen3.6‑27B and DeepSeek‑Prover‑V2‑7B, the authors find that showing a model its failed predecessor can hurt success and increase copying, while providing the corresponding compiler error can partially recover performance. In sequential trials, Qwen benefits from correct diagnostics within failed‑proof histories, but no feedback condition outperforms simple instruction‑only resampling, indicating that verifier feedback can aid repair yet cannot fully offset the cost of conditioning on a failed attempt.

By Jack Li, Sophia Li
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 16

Reasoning without Gold Standards: A Proxy-Judge Theory of Autoformalization

The paper introduces a reference‑free proxy‑judge framework for autoformalization, separating correctness into grounding, statement faithfulness, coverage, and inference. It presents three theoretical results linking proxy error rates to pass‑but‑wrong rates, the impact of false rejections on refinement, and a decomposition of final pass rates. The framework is instantiated with eight proxies and evaluated on ProofNet, miniF2F, e‑SNLI, and ProntoQA, showing that the predictions hold and identifying failure routes.

By Lei Xu, Xin Quan, Andr\'e Freitas
arXiv AI
Sep 21

SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?

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...

By George Ma, Benjamin Mikek, Haoyu Li, Ferhat Erata, Yuhao Zhang, Zeren Shui, Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani, Jun Huan, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Somayeh Sojoudi, Hao Zhou, Anoop Deoras
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Solving VeriContest with a Lean-Backed Rust Verifier

The paper reports that all 1,325 theorems from the VeriContest benchmark—comprising 1,007 competitive‑programming problems in Rust with Verus specifications—were successfully proved using Rust‑Prover, a Lean 4‑based verifier. The authors translated each Verus specification and Rust program into Lean, then used Lean’s kernel to confirm the proofs, achieving a 70% first‑iteration success rate and completing 1,259 proofs in under 32 hours on Claude Opus 5.5. The translated Lean programs matched the original Rust outputs on 21,413 benchmark test cases, and the study also compared performance across multiple large‑language‑model settings, noting that higher reasoning effort increased cost without improving proof counts.

By Traian Serbanuta, Jun Xu, Andrei Stefanescu, Cosmin Radoi
arXiv AI
Oct 16

ClaimScope: Label-Blind Witness Verification for Mathematical Claim Auditing

ClaimScope is a 72‑task benchmark that audits mathematical claims by requiring a verdict, scope, counterexample, and repair, covering areas such as optimizer‑state transport and exact $2 imes2$ linear algebra. The study evaluates Qwen3‑8B using a witness checker that only examines the model’s submitted state, showing that verifier feedback improves counterexample acceptance and safe completions compared to generic feedback. The results demonstrate that separating claim classification from executable evidence can yield gains in witness‑structure correction without necessarily improving broader reasoning.

By Mushir Akhtar