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.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.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: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.
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.