HoarePrompt: Structural Reasoning About Program Correctness in Natural Language

Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automated software engineering, yet their guarantee of correctness is frequently undermined by erroneous or hallucinated code. To enforce model honesty, formal verification requires LLMs to synthesize implementation logic alongside formal specifications that are subsequently proven correct by a mathematical verifier. However, the transition from informal natural language to precise formal specification remains an arduous task. Our work addresses this by providing the NaturalLanguage2VerifiedCode (NL2VC)-60 dataset: a collection of 60 complex algorithmic problems. We evaluate 11 randomly selected problem sets across seven open-weight LLMs using a tiered prompting strategy: contextless prompts, signature prompts providing structural anchors, and self-healing prompts utilizing iterative feedback from the Dafny verifier. To address vacuous verification, where models satisfy verifiers with trivial specifications, we integrate the uDebug platform to ensure functional validation. Our results show that while contextless prompting leads to near-universal failure, structural signatures and iterative self-healing facilitate a dramatic performance turnaround. Specifically, Gemma 4-31B achieved a 90.91% verification success rate, while GPT-OSS 120B rose from zero to 81.82% success with signature-guided feedback. These findings indicate that formal verification is now attainable for open-weight LLMs, which serve as effective apprentices for synthesizing complex annotations and facilitating high-assurance software development.

Unlike natural-language specifications, executable formal specifications provide machine-checkable constraints for verifying, debugging, and repairing code. However, writing such specifications is labor-intensive, and existing LLM-based methods mainly infer whole-program pre/postconditions, missing the intermediate semantic commitments that programmers rely on when reasoning about an algorithm. Our study further shows that prompting current CodeLLMs often produces executable assertions that are syntactically invalid, trivial, or too weak to reject behavior-changing faults. In this paper, we study executable checkpoint specification generation, where assertions are inserted at meaningful internal program points to describe expected intermediate states. We introduce SpecCoder, a verification-guided CodeLLM training framework that learns from validated reference programs, behavior-changing mutants, and multi-turn specification-refinement traces. SpecCoder selects specifications that hold on correct executions while rejecting faulty executions, turning specifications from passive annotations into executable evidence. To evaluate this setting, we introduce HumanExec, a benchmark built from recent Codeforces competitive programming problems with test suites, reference solutions, and human buggy submissions, supporting three tasks: specification generation, program correctness checking, and program repair. Experiments on HumanExec show that SpecCoder substantially improves checkpoint-specification quality over base CodeLLMs. Across Qwen2.5-Coder models, SpecCoder improves inline-specification correctness by up to 55.8%, completeness by up to 358.1%, and executable assertion validity by up to 26.6%. These gains further translate to downstream correctness reasoning and repair, showing that executable checkpoints provide fine-grained evidence for reliable verification.