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.
By Junyu Ren
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.
By Shuangxiang Kan, Shuanglong Kan, Sebastian Ertel
arXiv:2607. 08028v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise large language model (LLM) applications often begin as prototypes whose behavior is carried by prompts and retrieval context.
By Joongho Ahn, Moonsoo Kim
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. 13522v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code.
By Zhe Ye, Hantao Lou, Yuechun Sun, Peiyang Song, Zhengxu Yan, Timothe Kasriel, Qingyang Zhang, Kaiyu Yang, Soonho Kong, Jingxuan He, Dawn Song
arXiv:2606. 03907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI coding tools write code with increasing autonomy and in doing so decide when to import a library and when to implement functionality from scratch.
By Jai Lal Lulla, Matthias Galster, Jie M. Zhang, Sebastian Baltes, Christoph Treude