arXiv AI By Andoni Rodriguez, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

Cycle-Consistent Neural Explanation of Formal Verification Certificates

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 24414v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jul 15

A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification

arXiv:2511. 09008v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and health-care that operate under strict policies.

By Chenyang An, Sam Bayless, Stefano Buliani, Darion Cassel, Byron Cook, Duncan Clough, R\'emi Delmas, Nafi Diallo, Ferhat Erata, Nick Feng, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, Aman Goel, Aditya Gokhale, Joe Hendrix, Victor Heorhiadi, Marc Hudak, Dejan Jovanovi\'c, Andrew M. Kent, Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter, Jeffrey J. Kuna, Nadia Labai, Joseph Lilien, Divya Raghunathan, Zvonimir Rakamari\'c, Niloofar Razavi, Michael Tautschnig, Ali Torkamani, Nathaniel Weir, Michael W. Whalen, Jianan Yao
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Communicating Credit Risk with Large Language Models: Evaluation of Explanations from Standard and Alternative Data-Based Models

The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations from credit risk models into stakeholder-friendly narratives. Using Freddie Mac loan data, the authors compare standard tabular models (XGBoost + SHAP) with alternative data pipelines (GNN + GNNExplainer and a bimodal mix) and generate explanations with three LLM configurations: a small fine‑tuned Gemma 3 4B, a large fine‑tuned DeepSeek R1 70B, and a zero‑shot Gemini 2.5. Findings show that the quality of explanations is more dependent on the evidence representation than on the LLM, that narratives reliably identify influential factors but are less consistent about the direction of influence, and that credit professionals demand higher evidentiary standards than non‑professionals.

By Sahab Zandi, Noah Kostesku, Christophe Mues, Mar\'ia \'Oskarsd\'ottir, Cristi\'an Bravo
arXiv AI
Jul 28

Traceable LLM Reasoning for Fake-Order Fraud Detection

arXiv:2607. 23075v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Detecting fake-order fraud at scale remains a critical challenge for large online-to-offline (O2O) service platforms, as existing approaches often rely on expert-designed features, produce black-box decisions, and provide limited interpretability.

By Siqi You, Bingsong Xu, Zhixian Zheng, Xinjian Peng, Yang Xie, Ying Wang, Jiarong Xu