An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Specifications for VeriFast

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.

Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction. The de facto workflow decouples the two halves of the problem: first synthesize a program, then attempt to prove it correct. We observe that this sequential pipeline can be both ineffective and inefficient in practice. A program generated without anticipating its proof can be subtly incorrect or structurally difficult to verify, forcing the LLM into brittle repair loops that alternate between patching the code and patching the proof. Inspired by Dijkstra's view that a program and its correctness argument should be developed hand in hand, we propose $P^3$, an LLM-based agentic workflow that first derives a unified program-and-proof plan from the specification, then elaborates the implementation and proof scaffold under this shared plan. To evaluate verified code generation in realistic settings, we further introduce Lean4Commit0, a repository-derived, library-level benchmark built by extracting core APIs from real-world software repositories and translating their requirements, including relational specifications across APIs, into Lean tasks. Using four frontier LLM backends, we evaluate $P^3$ on Verina, AlgoVeri, and our Lean4Commit0 benchmark, where it achieves the highest solve rate in every benchmark--model setting. Compared with the stronger baseline, it improves solve rates by 4.6--11.2 percentage points and reduces per-task API cost by up to roughly 40% and wall-clock time by up to roughly 37% on the difficult subset of each benchmark. A targeted ablation further shows gains of 3.3--8.3 points over implementation-only planning, isolating the benefit of planning the program and proof jointly.

Recent frontier large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in identifying security vulnerabilities in large, mature open-source systems. As LLM-generated code becomes increasingly common, a natural goal is to prevent such models from producing vulnerable implementations in the first place. Formal verification offers a principled route to this objective, but existing verification pipelines typically require specifications written in rigid formal languages. Prior work has explored using LLMs to synthesize such specifications, with limited success. In this paper, we investigate a different approach: using LLMs both to generate specifications and to verify implementations compositionally when the specifications are expressed in natural language. Our preliminary results suggest that this approach is promising.