CodeSpecBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Executable Behavioral Specification Generation

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.

Large language models (LLMs) may generate unreliable code on corner cases missed by testing, while formal verification can provide machine-checkable guarantees. Recently, researchers have proposed several benchmarks to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in generating formally verifiable code, where LLMs need to formulate formal specifications, generate the corresponding code, and verify its correctness. However, existing benchmarks have two key limitations: (I) They primarily evaluate specification and code generation stage-wise, with code generation typically conditioned on an oracle specification. This setup overlooks whether strong stage-wise performance translates into end-to-end success. (II)They mainly focus on a single proof-oriented language and mathematically structured tasks, offering limited coverage of tasks common in software development. In this paper, we introduce VeriCodeBench, a benchmark for self-spec verifiable code generation, where the LLM relies solely on its own generated specification and code throughout the entire process. VeriCodeBench contains 400 language-native problems across C, Java, Rust, and Python, covering practical concerns in software development. We evaluate specification coverage, code validity, and joint problem-level success. We further introduce CodeNova to enhance the capabilities of LLMs in self-spec verifiable code generation. CodeNova makes requirements explicit through constraint-guided specification and uses verifier feedback to guide targeted implementation repairs. Experimental results reveal that self-generated specifications remain a major bottleneck, while providing more sophisticated specifications may not necessarily lead to higher verification success rates. CodeNova substantially improves performance across all evaluation metrics, enabling Claude Sonnet 5 to achieve the strongest results under the self-spec protocol.

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.