Formal Verification

LLM coding agents now generate complex programs at a scale that makes thorough human review increasingly difficult, raising the risk of safety and security failures. Common approaches, including fuzz testing, static analysis, and LLM-as-a-Verifier, can detect many failures but struggle to cover all possible edge cases. Formal verification addresses this by providing machine-checkable guarantees over specified properties, but traditionally demands substantial manual specification and proof engineering. We introduce a unified multi-agent framework, MAGS, that generates executable programs with formal safety guarantees, using Dafny as a verification-aware intermediate representation where safety properties can be mechanically checked. MAGS formalizes and freezes human-audited APIs and safety requirements, translates generated code into Dafny, repairs violations using verifier feedback, and compiles verified programs back into executable code. We evaluate MAGS on 100 CUDA kernels, 100 terminal scripts, and 20 robotic-arm tasks. Across all 220 examples, it achieves a 100% success rate in producing programs with non-trivial safety guarantees against frozen specifications. Independent safety and functional evaluations further show strong performance across all three domains, while revealing failures when the auto-formalized semantics do not fully capture the target behavior.

We consider the problems of formal verification and synthesis in parametric Markov decision processes (MDPs) with general measurable state and action spaces. The heart of our approach is a parameter flattening transformation, which allows us to transform parametric MDPs into semantically equivalent non-parametric MDPs. Building on this transformation, we introduce the novel notion of parametric supermartingale certificates, which generalize the traditional supermartingale certificates---used for non-parametric MDPs---to the parametric setting. We use our parametric supermartingale certificates to design algorithms for verification and approximate synthesis in polynomial arithmetic parametric MDPs. This leads to the first verification and synthesis algorithms for parametric MDPs with general state and action spaces. We implement our algorithms and experimentally evaluate them on several continuous parametric random walk benchmarks.

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

For every coherent and sufficiently expressive finite syntactic system S, we prove the existence of at least one theorem that S cannot produce autonomously. The result is a metatheorem: it proves the existence of a theorem, and applies to every finite syntactic system - security mechanisms, AI systems, formal verifiers, legal systems, economic models, and the formal system in which it is itself proved.

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

Agentic systems driven by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world workflows where they act on persistent operational data. Before deployment, these systems need to be verified against business requirements that govern workflow execution and data evolution. However, existing approaches do not provide such system-level guarantees, as they mainly constrain or analyse behaviour at the agent's interface level. We study here the verification of agentic systems comprising a single LLM and a tool orchestration harness over relational operational data. We formalise them as Stateful Tool-Enabled Agentic Deployments (STEADs), give their semantics, define the problem of verifying them against First-Order Computation Tree Logic (FO-CTL) specifications, and show that it is undecidable. We identify sufficient conditions for exact preservation of FO-CTL specifications under a finite-domain restriction, over which verification is PSPACE-complete. The key requirement is that renaming opaque identifiers in the data must correspondingly rename the selected tool calls. We show that LLM-driven agents can violate this condition and introduce a canonical deployment wrapper that guarantees it for arbitrary base agents while preserving already-equivariant behaviour. We prove that computing canonical representations required by this construction is graph-isomorphism-hard. Finally, we illustrate our framework on an LLM agent orchestrating a case-management workflow.

Combining Bayesian learning and quantitative verification is a powerful toolset for analysing key quantitative properties of software systems, like reliability and response time. However, the accuracy and robustness of verification results strongly depend on the prior knowledge (PK) underlying Bayesian inference. This knowledge reflects original beliefs about the probability of events and typically depends on domain expertise. Using inaccurate or uninformative PK can negatively affect quantitative analysis, yielding incorrect verification results. Our EPIK approach tackles this important challenge by eliciting and embedding PK in quantitative verification equipped with Bayesian estimators. Unlike existing approaches that require PK on formal model transition parameters, EPIK leverages system-level properties that are directly observable and are linked to real-world semantics. EPIK formulates a twofold optimisation problem to derive the distributions of unknown transition parameters and then embeds these distributions to verify new or difficult-to-measure (elusive) properties. The detailed experimental evaluation using multiple variants of real-world case studies and diverse EPIK instantiations shows its effectiveness, flexibility and generality.

Verification consumes the majority of modern chip design effort, yet the formal verification tools that provide mathematical guarantees of correctness remain expensive and restrictively licensed. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for hardware design, existing approaches to RTL repair validate their results through simulation - which exercises only a subset of inputs - or rely on commercial tools, and few combine formal proof with an entirely open-source toolchain. In this paper, we present a multi-agent pipeline that couples an LLM with an open-source formal backend (Yosys, SymbiYosys, and Z3) to repair RTL through counterexample-guided iteration: the framework generates formal properties, verifies the design, and feeds counterexamples back to the LLM until the design is proved correct by k-induction or an iteration budget is exhausted. Through an ALU case study, we show that the pipeline can detect and repair a real functional bug with a formal proof of correctness. Across a six-benchmark suite, one design is repaired reliably, and we characterize four distinct failure modes: bounded-cover vacuity, specification ambiguity, temporal-logic bugs, and multi-property pressure. We frame this work as a feasibility study with a detailed failure analysis, and additionally report a practical limitation of the Yosys bind directive relevant to the open-source formal verification community.

Large language model (LLM) agents autonomously interleave semantic reasoning with complex system operations. In these dynamic environments, static tool-level permissions are fundamentally insufficient; safe authorization is highly context-dependent and heavily reliant on evolving runtime states and data flows. We present FAVA (Formal Authorization for Verified Agents), a permission-carrying authorization framework for agent execution. FAVA utilizes an LLM-guided Permission Intermediate Representation (IR) to translate ambiguous natural-language tasks into structured constraints. A deterministic lowering pass then converts this IR into an evidence-backed permission graph that explicitly tracks data flows, dependencies, and contextual labels. To provide strict security guarantees, a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) authorizer mathematically verifies the current graph against security policies before any effectful action executes. A runtime gateway then enforces the solver's result, either authorizing the execution or intercepting it with a precise counterexample. We evaluate FAVA across OpenAgentSafety, OctoBench, and ActPlane scenarios. Our evaluation demonstrates that FAVA achieves a 90.5% Decision Compliance Rate (DCR) over the aggregate dataset, successfully intercepting dynamic violating traces in the evaluated trace-conditioned scenarios.

Functional verification dominates integrated circuit (IC) front-end engineering effort, and a single missed bug that escapes to silicon can trigger a costly respin. Recent large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to automate this process, yet existing LLM-based approaches generate each component through independent single-turn calls with no shared context, leaving interface mismatches undetected and reported coverage disconnected from specification requirements. To address these challenges, we present GoGoTB, an agentic framework that achieves end-to-end verification closure through three subsystems: an agentic execution control layer, an evolvable knowledge system, and specification-grounded coverage closure. The execution control layer separates deterministic enforcement from LLM reasoning at every tool and stage boundary. The knowledge system dispatches methodology and design-specific expertise on demand. The coverage framework anchors every bin to a named specification behavior so that each residual gap has a diagnosable root cause and a targeted remedy. Tested on 8 register transfer level (RTL) designs without any human intervention, GoGoTB achieves 100% environment generation success and averages 98.4% line, 97.2% branch, 97.0% toggle, and 83.2% functional coverage. No prior work successfully generates a complete verification environment or achieves meaningful coverage on the same benchmarks.

In this work, we investigate the effect of lookahead branching strategies in neural network verification. We present a general recipe to integrate lookahead into any branch-and-bound verifier and demonstrate how one of the current state-of-the-art branching heuristics, FSB, can be viewed as a special instantiation of the lookahead branching strategy. We also describe how, in addition to improving the quality of branching decisions, lookahead can generate additional lemmas that accelerate verification. We instantiate the method in two representative branch-and-bound-based verifiers (Marabou and $α$-$β$-CROWN), and demonstrate that lookahead leads to consistent speedups in verification time and up to $57\%$ more solved instances. Code is available at https://github.com/ai-ar-research/lookahead-branching.

Autoformalization translates informal natural language into formal, machine-verifiable languages. While most work focuses on individual statements, real formalization efforts are inherently theory-level: they require an entire web of axioms, definitions, and lemmas before target theorems can even be stated. In this position paper, we argue for theory-level autoformalization: formalizing complete theories, including all their inter-dependencies, as structured libraries. We examine the significance of this shift, address alternative views, identify open challenges, and propose three promising paths forward. Our survey of autoformalization is available at https://github.com/marcusm117/Awesome-Autoformalization.

Program verification is crucial for software correctness, but producing fully verified programs remains difficult in practice. This paper studies whether implementation structure affects automated verifiability when multiple generated programs are intended to satisfy the same task-level semantics. We present Diversify2Verify, a staged LLM-based pipeline for Why3 that infers representation-specific contracts, generates and tests diverse recursive and imperative array/list implementations, and attempts verification with bounded verifier-guided annotation repair. We also construct a verification-oriented benchmark of 73 tasks over integers, arrays, and lists, yielding 292 implementation variants. Diversify2Verify verifies 96 artifacts initially and 154 after two repair passes, improving artifact-level verification from 32.9% to 52.7%. At the task level, at least one variant verifies for 49 of 73 tasks, a 67.1% success rate. These results show that task-equivalent implementations can differ substantially in verifiability and that implementation diversity helps find verification-friendly artifacts.

In this system paper, we present OpenProver, an open-source system for LLM-driven automated theorem proving (ATP) with integrated Lean 4 formal verification. OpenProver integrates a Planner-Worker-Verifier architecture inspired by recent ATP agentic systems such as Aletheia. A Planner agent maintains a compact Whiteboard scratchpad and an unbounded Repository of intermediate findings, and decomposes mathematical work into parallel Workers. OpenProver is fully open-source, offers reproducible evaluation through automatic formal verification of generated proofs, and provides an interactive terminal interface for human-guided proof search. In interactive mode, OpenProver allows the human operator to monitor and steer the proof search process, motivated by the established human-AI synergy in interactive code generation. To showcase the potential for quantitative ablation experiments enabled by automatic formal verification, we evaluate OpenProver on ProofNet and compare it with a simple baseline. OpenProver is publicly available at https://github.com/kripner/OpenProver.

A Ladder Logic Bomb (LLB) is malicious control logic in a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) program that lies dormant until a trigger activates a payload to manipulate actuators, forge sensor readings, or deny operator control. We observe that real malicious logic hides inside function-block bodies, which existing ladder-diagram verifiers drop from their intermediate representation (IR), making bombs invisible to provers. We present ESBMC-LLB, which uses ESBMC-PLC+ as its verification engine and adds a modeling layer that exposes function-block logic and recasts bomb detection as a formal verification problem: a scan-watchdog exposes non-termination payloads, and output wiring exposes actuator-forgery payloads as safety violations. k-induction gives an unbounded proof of bomb-absence across all scans, and the bounded model checker returns a counterexample that is the trigger - guarantees that signature, anomaly, and CFG-triage detectors lack. On the public Iacobelli 2024 dataset, ESBMC-LLB detects all 30 bombs and recovers every trigger; it also detects adaptive triggers (computed, opaque-arithmetic, multi-scan) that evade CFG-triage. We also report the first semantic model-checker evaluation on PLC-Defuser's SWaT corpus: our analog extension makes the full corpus parseable; on v1.0.0, it detects 149/150 bombs (99%) with zero false positives, recovering each trigger; on a later version with nonlinear non-termination bombs, detection drops to 49% as the SMT solver times out. We conclude that semantic model checking and CFG-triage are complementary - the former gives unbounded proofs, adaptive-trigger robustness, and handles Boolean/integer and linear analog logic; the latter leads to nonlinear analog non-termination, and we delineate where each wins.

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. We show that imposing such a strategy is unnecessary and limiting. Handing the whole lemma to a general LLM code agent (for example, Claude Code), free to choose its own approach, and wrapping it in a verification harness is both simpler and more effective, achieving full coverage: every targeted lemma proved, with no failures and no Coq expert intervention. The agent writes the proofs under feedback and hard constraints from the harness that keep each one sound (accepted only when the prover's kernel closes it), complete (no obligation left unproved or silently dropped), and terminating (no divergent tactics). We evaluate this harness plus code agent along three dimensions. (1) Core logic: on Iris, the state-of-the-art separation logic for concurrent and memory-manipulating programs, Aria proves all 4,257 lemmas of the four core modules and the 217 lemmas verifying Rust's standard libraries built on it, fully automatically. (2) Comparison with prior LLM provers: on reglang, where prior provers manage barely one in eight, Aria proves all 318. (3) Generality: on iris-lean, the unfinished Lean 4 port of Iris, it proves 72 not-yet-ported lemmas, showing the approach is not specific to Coq. A state-of-the-art model (Claude Opus 4.7) can write proofs for verified software development fully and automatically.

We present AgentLens, a production-assessed benchmark for interactive code agents. Most code-agent benchmarks reduce a run to a single bit -- did the task pass? -- but the people who actually use these agents experience the entire trajectory: how the agent follows instructions, uses its tools, verifies its own work, recovers from mistakes, and talks to them along the way. AgentLens evaluates that whole trajectory. It pairs formal verification, where an objective check exists, with LLM-written trajectory reviews and side-by-side comparisons, so that each run yields a readable explanation of why the score is what it is. This makes AgentLens useful for more than ranking models: we use it to diagnose model behavior, compare successive versions of our own agent, and catch product regressions in a nightly evaluation pipeline. We release the benchmark as open source at https://github.com/agent-lens/agent-lens-bench.

The cost of producing code is rapidly diminishing with increasingly capable AI agents, while quality assurance of generated programs has not kept pace. Formal verification provides the strongest possible guarantees, but the ability of AI models to work with verification-aware languages is hindered by the scarcity of human-written examples of programs in those languages. To tackle this prevalent data scarcity issue, we propose Formal Disco: a distributed system for coordination of LLM-based workers that can be easily applied to open-ended synthetic data generation at scale. We use Formal Disco to share tasks and programs between three classes of workers: "initiators", which read random READMEs from open-source repositories and documentation snippets to sketch a related verified program, "fixers" which take compiler and verifier feedback and attempt to resolve issues, and "extenders" that take working programs and propose patches to expand them. Formal Disco records all agent-generated traces and uses them both for initial distillation from a stronger model as well as self-improvement. We also propose a principle of maximum entropy for synthetic program generation, and use entropy maximization via iterative supervised fine-tuning to learn to generate increasingly diverse programs over time. We release large datasets of synthetic verified programs in three languages - Dafny, Verus, and Frama-C -, and fine-tune open models for verification-relevant tasks, often matching or exceeding the performance of Claude Opus 4.5. Overall, our work offers a path to create synthetic data at scale for formal reasoning domains and overcome the long-standing data barrier.

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical programs written in Python. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python programs into verification-oriented WhyML representations suitable for formal verification, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable users to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correctness of Python programs for hypothesis testing and for meta-analyses.

We study agentic code generation in Dafny, where a model must generate both executable code and the proof artifacts for verification. We present AxDafny, a verifier-guided repair framework that iteratively generates implementations, invariants, assertions, and termination arguments. We also introduce LiveCodeBench-Pro-Dafny (LCB-Pro-Dafny), a benchmark of 250 competition-style programming problems translated into Dafny with formal specifications and a verifier-based evaluation harness. On LCB-Pro-Dafny, AxDafny substantially improves verification success over baseline GPT-5.5 performance. On DafnyBench, AxDafny achieves 92.7% verification success, outperforming the strongest previously reported proof-hint baseline by 6.5 percentage points. Lastly, we show that verification success and runtime test performance measure different aspects of generated code.

Auto-formalization is critical for scalable formal verification, but existing progress largely focuses on isolated statements, while theory-scale auto-formalization, which coherently translates hundreds of interdependent definitions, lemmas, and theorems, remains open due to challenges in consistency, faithfulness, scalability, and correctness. In this paper, we introduce LCS-Bench, a stand-alone, theory-scale benchmark based on Logics for Computer Science. LCS-Bench is built through a novel semi-automated agentic pipeline that leverages concept graphs, formal signature planning, issue tracking, sorry-filling with counter-example search, complemented by faithfulness review from human experts. The resulting artifact covers 327 textbook items, over 4,076 Lean declarations, and more than 85K lines of Lean code. The dataset supports broad evaluation through a data engine that automatically derives five tracks of evaluation benchmarks, measuring different aspects of auto-formalization and theorem-proving capabilities. We also introduce a novel evaluation protocol featuring definitional equivalence checkers, enabling more fine-grained and faithful assessment. Through extensive evaluation on 14 models, we demonstrate that (1) LCS-Bench is of high quality, consistent, and faithful; (2) the benchmark is challenging, with state-of-the-art models achieving only 20.1% on auto-formalization tasks; and (3) our analysis reveals key findings regarding theory-scale auto-formalization and suggests promising directions for future work.

Static verification tools can assure industrial scale software, but require significant human labor to write specifications. This is particularly true of static verifiers based on separation logic (SL verifiers), which excel at verifying heapmanipulating programs, but require many complex auxiliary specifications to reason about heap structure. Recent work applies large language models (LLMs) to generate code, tests, and proofs, including specifications for verifiers, but mostly targeting non-SL verifiers. To address this gap, this paper thoroughly evaluates how well LLMs perform when prompted to generate specifications for verifying 303 C functions with the SL verifier VeriFast. We explored eight prompting approaches, ten LLMs, and three input types in two stages. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to assess the LLM-generated code and specifications for functional behavior, verifiability and errors. The results show that LLMs preserve functional behavior in source code and specifications (both over 91%), but achieve modest verification success (31.4%). Using Gemini 2.5 Pro and providing formal contracts lead to higher success rates in our setting. Moreover, most errors (94%) come from LLMs' mistakes in the domainspecific knowledge of SL verifiers such as VeriFast. These findings provide guidance for optimizing LLM-generated specifications for SL verifiers.

Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders. We propose a cycle-consistent neural architecture that generates faithful natural language explanations of verification certificates. A forward network NN1 maps certificates to explanations, and an inverse network NN2 reconstructs certificates from explanations; a symbolic verifier closes the loop, providing a differentiable faithfulness proxy. A pointer-generator mechanism ensures lexical grounding by copying state names directly from the certificate. We evaluate on 420 test certificates spanning six verification methods (bounded proof, k-induction, inductive invariant, lasso, reachability, witness pair) in both YES and NO verdict variants, drawn from a financial compliance domain with 207 named states. Our trained architecture, combined with a hybrid inference-time routing strategy, achieves 90.0% cycle-verified soundness, surpassing a multi- LLM few-shot baseline (76.1% for the best of 16 LLM combinations across four frontier models) by 13.9 percentage points. The neural model wins on 10 of 12 verdict/kind categories, with three categories reaching 100% soundness. The architecture offers 860x faster inference (185 ms vs. 160 s per certificate for the full multi-LLM baseline), offline operation, deterministic outputs, and zero per-inference cost. These results demonstrate that trained specialization outperforms general-purpose LLM prompting for structured certificate explanation, while eliminating the deployment constraints of cloud-based inference.

Multi-step reasoning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains fragile: logical errors or hallucinations in early steps silently propagate, producing confident but incorrect conclusions. This paper presents VeryTrace, a zero-shot verification-and-repair framework that formalizes natural-language reasoning traces into a structured, compilable representation. VeryTrace introduces a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that (i) makes step dependencies explicit, (ii) mechanizes quantitative content as executable expressions, and (iii) structures semantic inferences via deduction schemas. Our hybrid verifier combines deterministic checks for computational correctness, dependency resolution, and constraint satisfaction with targeted LLM audits for non-mechanizable semantic judgments, enabling step-level error localization and repair. Across three diverse domains-competition mathematics (AIME 2025), robotics planning (LLM-BabyBench), and kinship reasoning (CLUTRR), VeryTrace improves accuracy over zero-shot baselines on state-of-the-art LLMs without requiring domain-specific training or in-context examples, demonstrating that formalized trace verification achieves both precision and generalization.

PLCverif is the most mature open-source platform for PLC formal verification, developed at CERN and in production use since 2019. Yet it has two fundamental limitations: no support for Ladder Diagram (LD) programs, the dominant PLC notation, and reliance on CBMC as its primary backend, which restricts verification to bounded proofs. The PLCverif authors themselves identified ESBMC as the appropriate backend improvement. Prior work established ESBMC-PLC (a textual LD frontend with k-induction) and ESBMC-GraphPLC (graphical PLCopen XML support); together, they cover LD with unbounded proofs but not Structured Text (ST), and graphical LD with timer/counter function blocks remains unverifiable. This paper presents ESBMC-PLC+, a unified framework that closes both gaps: (1) an ST/SCL frontend via the MATIEC IEC 61131-3 compiler, routing C-compiled ST to ESBMC with nondeterministic input modeling and YAML property injection; (2) function block state semantics for graphical LD, extending the DFS resolver to model TON/TOF/TP timers, CTU/CTD counters, and R_TRIG/F_TRIG edge triggers as persistent scan-cycle state variables in the GOTO IR. ESBMC-PLC+ is the first open-source PLC verification framework to support all three major IEC 61131-3 input formats via a single ESBMC backend, enabling k-induction-unbounded safety proofs. A feature comparison with PLCverif and experimental evaluation on 8 benchmark programs, including programs with up to 8 integer timers, shows that ESBMC-PLC+ matches PLCverif's input coverage while providing stronger guarantees. Against nuXmv's BDD backend, ESBMC-PLC+ is 400-2,000x faster on timer programs and completes proofs where nuXmv BDD times out at 120s.

We propose cryptographic certificates of validity for agentic AI systems. The core idea is to formally specify a correctness or policy condition as a logical predicate, compile this predicate to a witness-checking problem over polynomial constraints, and use a succinct cryptographic proof system (and optionally zero-knowledge) to certify that the condition holds. This offers a middle ground between formal verification of source code, and cryptographic authentication. An agent's action can be accompanied by an independently checkable proof that it satisfies an agreed formal policy, without requiring the verifier to trust the agent or to re-execute computation. We outline the approach at a high level, give the core mathematical translation, relate the proposal to proof-carrying code, zkVMs, formal methods, and agent governance, and note the specification, auditing, and deployment questions that a full implementation must answer.

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

In this work we present a LLM powered, evolutionary code synthesis system for structured data translation in a Medical Internet of Things settings. A key challenge in this domain is ensuring that the synthesized code is trustworthy and reliable. To this end, we integrate a formal verification step into our code synthesis pipeline to ensure that any generated code is guaranteed to satisfy predefined requirements. In particular, we present a case study of integrating a novel device (a pulse oximeter) into the existing network of devices. Our system generates a formally verified translation between the device's JSON schema and the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format used by the wider system. This formal verification stage ensures structured data translated by the generated code will always be in the target output schema. We provide a set of experimental results which demonstrate that our system is able to consistently generate correct translation at low cost.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) enables agents to develop coordination strategies through emergent communication, but neural policies lack the formal safety guarantees required for safety-critical robotic deployment in drone swarms and autonomous vehicle fleets. We present the first end-to-end framework for safety verification of learned multi-agent communication policies through policy abstraction: neural policies are distilled into interpretable decision trees, then formally verified, with empirical validation confirming that verified safety properties transfer to original networks. Our four-stage pipeline consists of domain-specific feature extraction from agent observations, decision tree distillation achieving 97.9% +/- 1.2% fidelity to neural policies, automated translation to PRISM probabilistic model checker specifications with complete feature-to-state-variable correspondence, and compositional verification of Probabilistic Computation Tree Logic (PCTL) properties via pairwise decomposition with union-bound aggregation and empirical neighbor modeling. Evaluating Vector-Quantized Variational Information Bottleneck (VQ-VIB) policies for multi-drone coordination with 5-7 agents, we verify 18 temporal logic properties across safety, liveness, and cooperation, achieving 88.9% property satisfaction with all five safety thresholds satisfied (0.3% collision probability vs. 1% threshold). Monte Carlo validation of original neural policies confirms that verified safety properties transfer with <=0.6 percentage-point deviation (95% CI). Discrete VQ-VIB messages provide +11.6 to +13.6 percentage-point fidelity advantages over continuous methods, enabling 3-4x faster verification. Our framework provides empirically validated safety verification for distilled policy abstractions, serving as a practical bridge between deep MARL and formal safety workflows for multi-robot deployment.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide step-level verification for Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, yet their training data acquisition remains a bottleneck: human annotation is costly and Monte Carlo roll-out estimates are noisy. A recent approach, FOVER, trains PRMs on step-level error labels automatically annotated by formal verification tools such as Z3 and Isabelle, and empirically observes cross-task generalization from symbolic tasks to diverse reasoning benchmarks. However, this generalization phenomenon lacks any theoretical explanation, and no formal bounds exist on the generalization error, sample complexity, convergence rate, or downstream Best-of-K performance of such PRMs. We propose VeriBound, a theoretical framework that provides PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds for PRMs trained with formal verification tools. We establish four main results: (i) a PAC-Bayesian generalization bound that relates the empirical verification error on formal-verification-annotated training data to the expected error on unseen reasoning tasks, with the bound depending on the formal verification accuracy and the divergence between training and test task distributions; (ii) a sample complexity result showing that $O(d \log(d/δ) / ε^2)$ formal-verification-annotated examples suffice to achieve generalization error $ε$ with probability $1-δ$, where $d$ is the complexity of the PRM hypothesis class; (iii) a convergence analysis proving that PRM training with formal verification labels converges at a linear rate under $L$-smoothness and bounded variance conditions; and (iv) an error propagation bound that relates step-level verification error to Best-of-K performance degradation.

PLCopen XML defines two encoding formats for IEC 61131-3 Ladder Diagram programs: a textual encoding using <rung> elements, and a graphical encoding that represents rung logic as a directed graph of localId/refLocalId connections. ESBMC-PLC supported the textual format but parsed graphical exports from CONTROLLINO, Beremiz, and OpenPLC Editor into an empty GOTO intermediate representation, causing vacuous verification success. This paper presents ESBMC-GraphPLC, which closes this gap with a DFS-based graphical LD resolver. The resolver traverses the connection graph from leftPowerRail to each coil, extracts rung paths as Boolean contact conjunctions, and applies a three-tier I/O inference scheme. Ordering coils by rightPowerRail connectionPointIn sequence ensures SET coils process before RESET coils, matching IEC scan-cycle semantics. The graphical-to-IR conversion leaves the ESBMC backend unchanged. Validation on 3 graphical LD programs from CONTROLLINO/OpenPLC Editor shows all produce full GOTO IR with nondeterministic inputs and rung logic, versus the empty IR previously. All 3 verify SAFE at k=2 under 70ms. The 11 textual LD benchmarks are fully preserved, with no regression. Two Beremiz examples with no LD content or unsupported timer semantics are reported as discovered limitations. Artifact at Zenodo (DantasCordeiro2026graphical, doi:10.5281/zenodo.20699856).

Though robotic systems are now being commercialized and deployed in various industries, many of these systems are highly specialized and often require an advanced skill set to operate and ensure they perform as instructed. To mitigate this problem, we recently introduced a mission planner leveraging LLMs to synthesize mission plans in precision agriculture based on mission descriptions provided in natural language. While the system demonstrates impressive performance, it also suffers from the inherent ambiguities of natural language. In this paper, we extend our system to address this issue by introducing multiple feedback loops in the planning architecture that leverage linear temporal logic (LTL) to ensure the mission planning system meets the specifications formulated by the user while still using natural language. To mitigate potential bias, this is achieved by using two different commercial LLMs in charge of the specification and verification subtasks. Through extensive experiments, we highlight the strengths and limitations of integrating mission verification into a fully autonomous pipeline, particularly regarding an LLM's ability to generate valuable LTL formulas, and show how our proposed implementation addresses and solves these challenges.

PLCs execute safety-critical programs across industrial sectors. The dominant PLC notation, ladder diagram (LD) per IEC 61131-3, remains absent from formal verification: SMT-based model checkers cannot process LD's rung-and-coil graphics. This paper presents ESBMC-PLC, the first open-source formal verifier with native LD support (PLCopen XML format), implemented as a new ESBMC frontend. ESBMC-PLC translates LD rungs to GOTO IR, models the PLC scan cycle as a while(true) loop with nondeterministic inputs, and checks safety properties via SMT-based bounded model checking or k-induction. A five-property YAML language (mutual_exclusion, invariant, absence, response, reachability) avoids temporal logic. A survey of 22 studies (2020-2026) identifies four research gaps; ESBMC-PLC closes two of them. Evaluation on 13 benchmarks (6 domains, 3 sources - including deployed CONTROLLINO PLCs and MathWorks Simulink PLC Coder) shows correct classification across 61 properties: all 9 author-constructed programs (Categories A/B) as expected, all 4 vendor programs (Category C) correctly unlabeled, with 8 bugs found (actionable counterexamples), 7 unbounded k-induction proofs, all runs under 60ms on Apple Silicon. Feature comparison with PLCverif shows that ESBMC-PLC is the only open-source tool that combines native LD, k-induction, and SMT bit-vector semantics.

We present HierSVA, an integrated suite that combines a pipeline, dataset, and benchmark for LLM-driven hierarchical hardware formal verification. HierSVA-SP pairs an RTL preprocessing toolchain with an LLM-in-the-loop formal verification flow to produce reference SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) on hierarchical RTL. Applying it to BaseJump STL yields HierSVA-DS, a dataset of 342 modules, with hierarchy metadata and depths 0--9, accompanied by a deep subset of 28 module-bug pairs with natural-language specifications and bug variants. HierSVA-B decomposes assertion quality into six metric axes: syntax correctness, assertion proof success rate, vacuity, specification faithfulness, mutation coverage, and formal core coverage. Applying HierSVA-B to twelve recent LLMs reveals three findings. First, the module-level compile rate is 67.1%; among generated assertions in evaluable runs, 82.1% prove non-vacuously, but the corresponding assertion sets detect only 70.2% of eligible injected faults and cover 36.2% of the formal core. Second, on 211 evaluable model--module entries in the deep subset, assertion sets flag buggy RTL with 0.87 recall, but 40% of predicted-buggy outcomes are false positives on correct RTL, limiting precision to 0.60. Third, agentic mode improves S1-style provability and strength metrics, but gains plateau and oscillate. Codes and artifacts are available at \href{https://github.com/HierSVAAnon/HierSVACodeAndArtifacts}{https://github.com/HierSVAAnon/HierSVACodeAndArtifacts}. Dataset is available at \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/AnonymousHierSVA/HierSVA}{https://huggingface.co/datasets/AnonymousHierSVA/HierSVA}.

Misconfigurations in computer networks remain a major source of critical Internet outages. Research is turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the complex, error-prone task of network configuration. However, even state-of-the-art models fail to resolve misconfigurations in large-scale, complex scenarios and often introduce new errors. In this work, we benchmark open- and closed-source LLMs augmented with formal network verification and context retrieval tools. We demonstrate that agentic architectures outperform base LLMs in repair efficacy (by 12% on average) and safety (by 17% on average), enabled by the ability to dynamically manage context and iteratively validate configuration repairs.

Embodied AI systems are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet ensuring their reliability remains a fundamental challenge. Drawing on discussions from the AAAI'26 Bridge Program on "Making Embodied AI Reliable with Testing and Formal Verification", this article argues that reliability in embodied AI is inherently a lifecycle assurance problem arising from uncertainty, human interaction, and emergent behaviors across tightly coupled system components. We identify three complementary directions toward reliable embodied AI: (1) trustworthy scenario-based testing supported by validated specifications and meaningful coverage metrics, (2) compositional verification enabled by structured symbolic representations of system behavior and environmental context, and (3) runtime assurance mechanisms capable of adapting to uncertainty and distribution shifts during deployment. Rather than treating these approaches independently, we advocate integrated assurance workflows that connect testing, verification, and runtime adaptation through shared neuro-symbolic representations and continuous feedback across the system lifecycle. Such integration provides a foundation for building trustworthy embodied AI systems that can operate safely and reliably in complex real-world environments.

As AI systems generate an ever-growing share of the world's code, formal verification offers a principled way to ensure that code is correct, and AI itself may be able to shoulder much of the verification burden. Yet we lack a clear picture of how well today's models and agents perform on verification tasks drawn from real-world software, since existing benchmarks rely largely on curated or synthetic problems, or focus on math rather than program verification. To close this gap, we present a benchmark for evaluating AI on real-world formal software verification tasks. We first scrape 7,413 distinct property-based tests (PBTs) from real-world Python repositories, then automatically translate 2,623 of them (35%) into 9,415 Lean 4 specifications with sorry placeholders (3.5 formalizations/PBT). Translating PBTs to Lean specs is challenging: it requires modeling Python in Lean, inferring the property encoded in a PBT, and handling side effects. We describe an agentic pipeline for transpiling PBTs into Lean, evaluate coverage and quality metrics, and provide baselines for proof generation using several approaches. All code (scraper and agents) and data (PBTs and Lean specs) are open source.

Formal methods provide rigorous accounts of program behavior, but practical software engineering often works through executable libraries, tests, and incremental design. This paper presents SEMBridge, a small tagless-final framework for generating weakest-precondition and bounded-checking interpretations from the same executable object programs. Instead of committing a program semantics to one abstract syntax tree and then writing separate traversals, object programs are written once against a semantic interface and interpreted into multiple meanings: readable code, concrete execution, predicate transformers, bounded counterexample search, and future proof-assistant or SMT back ends. The Python prototype implements a loop-free imperative core with assignments, conditionals, assumptions, and assertions. Across five example programs, the same tagless-final definitions generated executable state transformers and verification conditions that passed bounded checking over domains up to 729 states. The contribution is not a Scala code-generation system or a new verifier, but a compact architecture for keeping executable semantics, weakest-precondition artifacts, and bounded validation synchronized.

Automated formal verification remains challenging for large language models because data for proof assistants and verification-aware languages is scarce, and correctness depends on satisfying precise machine-checkable specifications rather than producing plausible code. This thesis studies how verifier environments can improve LLM generation of verified programs and proofs through reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) and verifier-guided inference-time search. First, we train open-source models in Dafny with RLVR using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and related variants, assembling generated candidates into complete programs and scoring them with compiler and verifier outcomes. Initial experiments on an APPS-derived Dafny dataset increased verified reward from 2.2% to 58.1%, but revealed specification hacking, where models exploit weak formal specifications instead of implementing the intended solutions. After filtering underspecified and vulnerable tasks, multi-turn RLVR on the refined benchmark improves the verified pass rate from 9.7% to 31.1%. Second, we develop a verifier-guided inference scaffold in Lean that treats proof generation as structured search over decomposed subgoals, verifier feedback, diagnostics, and repair. With a fixed base model, the full scaffold with proof reviser improves pass rate on an initial VeriCoding pilot set from 46.2% under direct repair to 69.2%. On the larger VERINA dataset, whole-task decomposition plus proof reviser solves 7 of 42 previously unsolved tasks. We also introduce Dalek-Bench, a repository-scale Lean benchmark derived from the Rust $\texttt{curve25519-dalek}$ verification project; preliminary results remain weak, indicating that stronger progress evaluation and task-specific tool-use policies are still needed.

We investigate the computational complexity of neural network verification in quantised settings. We distinguish three classes of Feedforward Neural Networks (FNNs): rational FNNs with exact rational weights, quantised FNNs whose weights come from a finite-width arithmetic, and dynamically quantised FNNs in which rational networks are evaluated with respect to a given finite-width arithmetic. We consider two types of specifications used in the literature. Linear programming (LP) specifications are conjunctions of linear constraints, while bit-vector (BV) specifications allow reasoning at the bit level and can express non-linear constraints. Our results give a complexity landscape of these verification problems. For quantised FNNs with fixed arithmetic precision, we show that verification under both LP and BV specifications remains NP-complete, matching the complexity of the rational case. For dynamically quantised FNNs with BV specifications, we establish upper bounds, complementing a previously known PSPACE-hardness result.

Formal verification offers a path to provably correct software, but writing verified code remains expensive enough that the technique is rarely used in production. Recent large language models can accelerate this work, and recent benchmarks measure their ability to translate specifications into code and machine-checked proofs of correctness. This thesis evaluates the state of such LLM-driven verified-code generation ("vericoding") in Lean and develops search-based methods for improving verification performance. We first reproduce a subset of the vericoding-benchmark Lean leaderboard on a current cross-vendor model pool, finding that non-reasoning performance remains roughly steady on US closed-source models while open-weight models have slightly improved. We update the iterative methodology of vericoding-benchmark with an agentic loop equipped with mathlib search, finding that model performance greatly improves and scales with agent budget. GPT-5.4 nearly saturates the benchmark at 95.0% on 423 specs with $K=50$ LLM calls. We then design two agent-directed tree-search formulations: a state-based orchestrator that branches on partial-proof states, and a context-based orchestrator that branches on full subagent contexts. Compared against the agent baseline, the context-based design solves a wider range of intermediate-difficulty specs at lower token cost, while the agent baseline retains an advantage on the hardest specs, where uninterrupted iteration matters most. We conclude that search structure has selective advantages over a strong agent baseline, and that more challenging benchmarks drawn from modern code are important to measure and drive further progress in automated formal verification. Code available upon request by contacting the author at leoy@mit.edu.

Formal verification of large C programs is impeded by state-space explosion: Bounded Model Checking (BMC) tools must encode the entire state space up to the predetermined bound by unrolling all nested constructs. We present ConVer, a top-down compositional verification tool. Given a C program with a top-level assertion, ConVer decomposes verification top-down: it uses a large language model (LLM) to synthesise function contracts from the system property, then alternates system-level and function-level checks in a CEGAR-CEGIS loop, refining contracts whenever a check fails via SMART ICE learning. We evaluate ConVer on four benchmark suites of increasing difficulty and against other state-of-the-art (SOTA) tools. On the Frama-C benchmark of 45 simple C programs, ConVer achieves 82-96% verification success across three LLM backends, with 93-95% of converged programs requiring only a single CEGAR-CEGIS iteration. On the X.509 parser benchmark (6~programs) and LF2C-Simple suite (17 programs), ConVer achieves 33-50% and 82-88% success respectively. On the VerifyThis suite of 11 recursive and loop-intensive programs, the Pre-Abstraction strategy achieves 55-64% success. In addition, we present ESBMC-LF a preprocessor tool that converts LF models to C while preserving the properties of the LF files, enabling ConVer to verify them. We transpile the LF Verifier Benchmarks using ESBMC-LF to C; we denote those LF-Hard. We show that ConVer successfully verifies 67% of LF-Hard benchmarks overall.

Learning-based methods for synthesizing controllers have gained popularity due to their high expressiveness and strong empirical performance. However, in safety-critical scenarios such as autonomous driving, robotics, and power systems, empirical performance alone is insufficient, and formal verification of controller properties such as stability and safety is highly desirable. Unfortunately, many prior verification approaches are either tied to specific structural assumptions on the system or the certificate, making them difficult to transfer across settings, or suffer from poor scalability on higher-dimensional neural network systems. In this tutorial, we present a unified framework that aims to mitigate this gap via bridging control with the state-of-the-art neural network verifier $α,\!β$-CROWN (alpha-beta-CROWN). At its core, $α,\!β$-CROWN is a general-purpose bounding engine for nonlinear functions represented as computation graphs: given an input domain, it can produce certified bounds and explicit linear relaxation of the nonlinear function. These certified bounds are useful on their own for tasks such as reachability analysis, and they also provide the foundation for more complex routines that perform satisfiability checking and optimization. More specifically, many control problems reduce to verifying real-valued inequalities over a state domain (e.g., Lyapunov theory). Consequently, $α,\!β$-CROWN enables scalable verification of such conditions by computing tight bounds and recursively partitioning and pruning subdomains based on the bounds. Thanks to GPU parallelization, this pipeline demonstrates superior scalability on verification and optimization problems that are challenging for traditional approaches. In this tutorial, we discuss the basics of $α,\!β$-CROWN and introduce its application to various control-related tasks.

Existing Large Language Model (LLM) approaches to SystemVerilog Assertion (SVA) generation primarily focus on syntactic validity and formal verification outcomes, while semantic alignment between generated assertions and natural language specifications remains difficult to quantify. As a result, hallucinated or misaligned SVAs can reduce confidence and increase debugging efforts in the absence of golden RTL. This paper presents SpecAlign, a framework for semantic evaluation and refinement of LLM-generated SVAs. SpecAlign introduces two iterative alignment loops that assess both natural language properties and SVAs against the design specification using entailment-based classification. We improve alignment decisions by generating multiple reasoning paths using chain-of-thought prompting and aggregating them via a self-consistency voting mechanism. Misaligned assertions are analyzed to generate actionable feedback for refinement. We further define a quantitative alignment score to measure semantic consistency across iterations. Experimental results demonstrate that SpecAlign effectively detects semantic inconsistencies and improves assertion alignment without relying on golden RTL, providing a scalable complement to traditional formal verification evaluation metrics.

Natural language interfaces can greatly benefit the accessibility and usability of optimization modeling, and recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show promise in automatically translating textual problem descriptions into executable solver formulations. However, a key challenge for existing approaches is to ensure that the inferred formulation correctly implements the intended task, even if it may execute without errors. We introduce VeriSimpl, a solver LLM framework for robust natural-language-to-optimization formalization. Our approach is based on the idea of simplification-based verification, where the optimization solver is leveraged to generate simplified diagnostic queries about a candidate formulation to allow the LLM to tractably reason about the correctness of the formulation with respect to the task description. We present such simplification strategies along different dimensions with respect to problem constraints and decision variables, which allow the LLM to reason locally under fixed global contexts. Evaluations on a range of optimization benchmarks show how our approach provides consistent improvements in accuracy over existing methods, while also providing a novel high-precision self-verification signal.

Agentic systems have recently emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics. To assess how far these capabilities extend to program verification, we evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation. Our results show that Claude generates arguably valid specifications for 98.8% of problems (with 81.3% also accepted by CLEVER's isomorphism-based scoring on the correct portion of the benchmark), certifies implementations against correct ground-truth specifications for 87.5% of problems, and reaches a 98.1% success rate on the end-to-end program generation and verification pipeline over entries with self-consistent premises. Across all stages, Claude further provides high-quality feedback on its own attempts (as confirmed under manual review), identifying underlying causes of failure and lingering bugs in the dataset. These findings highlight a growing mismatch between the difficulty of existing program verification benchmarks and the capabilities of modern agentic provers, and point to the need for more rigorous, bug-resilient evaluation methodologies, and in particular for alternatives to isomorphism-based scoring of generated specifications. More broadly, our results provide empirical evidence that tight compiler-in-the-loop agentic paradigms are currently the most effective approach for foundational program verification.

The adoption of vision neural networks in regulated industries requires formal robustness guarantees, especially in safety-critical domains such as healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and aerospace. However, current approaches are confined to incomplete statistical verification or robustness to $\ell_p$-norm and affine transforms, which cover only a narrow subset of perturbations to the image formation process. In particular, robustness to camera motion remains an open problem despite being key to deploy many vision applications. We present a formal verification approach that targets robustness against 3D motion perturbations of the capturing camera. We first establish a closed-form mapping from camera pose to pixel values. By analyzing the continuity properties of the resulting homographies, we show that recent work on Lipschitz optimization and piecewise continuity can be extended to derive tight linear bounds on perturbed pixel values. Our approach applies to scenes with predominantly planar structure, such as ground planes in augmented reality, road markings and traffic signs in autonomous driving, or planar workspaces in robotic manipulation. This enables the first formal verification of projective geometry transforms, without complex simulation, surrogate networks, or explicit image-formation models. We validate our implementation and show up to 89% speedup and 7% tighter bounds over prior work. We then evaluate our method on the VNN-COMP benchmark and reveal systematic weaknesses to projective perturbations. Finally, we demonstrate a real-world case study on a safety-critical runway classifier, highlighting practical vulnerabilities to camera motion, and addressing a key challenge in the certification of learned models. Data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/jeangud/homography-verification .

AI agents increasingly excel at generating, testing, and refining code. However, they fall short on tasks requiring formal guarantees of full coverage that testing alone cannot provide. Distributed systems are a prime example: properties such as consistency between reads and writes must hold under every possible interleaving of events. Mechanized formal verification can guarantee such correctness, but typically demands months to years of expert effort. As evidence, even SOTA coding agents (Codex with GPT-5.4 and Claude Code with Opus 4.6) succeed on only 2/7 distributed key-value-store specifications. In this paper, we present the first effective approach to addressing this gap, Inductive Deductive Synthesis (IDS), which jointly and incrementally synthesizes implementation and proof, and learns from failed attempts to systematically try promising strategies. Built as an agentic LLM system, IDS achieves 7/7 in about 6.8 hours and $106 per spec on average, roughly 200x faster than expert effort and 17% cheaper than SOTA agents. IDS further incorporates performance feedback into the same loop, yielding implementations up to 3x faster than published verified systems.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for software engineering, constructing high-quality benchmarks is crucial for evaluating not just the functional correctness, but also the formal verifiability of generated code. However, existing benchmarks are limited by the quantity and quality of positive and negative test cases, leading to an overestimation of model capabilities in generating specifications and implementations. To address this, we propose VeriScale, a novel framework driven by the adversarial implementations. It consists of two stages: test-suite expansion to construct diverse and challenging test cases, and test-suite reduction to distill them into compact yet discriminative suites. While VeriScale is general, we instantiate it on Verina to construct VerinaPlus, which expands the original test suites by over 83$\times$, and VerinaLite, a lightweight 14$\times$ variant. Our experiments across eight state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that VerinaPlus exposes substantial model weaknesses hidden by the original benchmark, evidenced by sharp score drops on both SpecGen and CodeGen tasks, whereas VerinaLite maintains this discriminative power at a fraction of the evaluation cost. The enhanced benchmarks and source code are publicly available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/VeriScale.

Effectively translating between natural language (NL) and formal logics like Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) requires expertise that limits formal verification's reach in safety-critical development. Template-based approaches sacrifice expressiveness for reliability; neural methods achieve fluency but provide no correctness guarantees. We present NeuroNL2LTL, a neurosymbolic architecture unifying learned translation with formal verification. NeuroNL2LTL routes translation through an intermediate representation whose mapping to LTL is structure-preserving by construction. Generated specifications undergo satisfiability and non-triviality checking; a minimal-edit repair mechanism corrects near-miss outputs before they reach downstream tools. The central innovation is verifier-in-the-loop training: verification outcomes serve as reward signals for reinforcement learning, producing neural components that optimize directly for formal correctness. On 200,000+ requirements spanning aerospace, robotics, autonomous vehicles, and ten additional domains, NeuroNL2LTL achieves 28% semantic equivalence with reference specifications while ensuring 86% of outputs are verified satisfiable. The system also generates contextually grounded explanations from LTL, enabling domain experts to validate specifications without specialized training. This work demonstrates that formal verification can function as both training objective and runtime filter for neural specification systems, allowing us to build neural-based tools whose reliability derives from logical guarantees rather than statistical confidence.

Reactive synthesis, the problem of automatically constructing a hardware circuit from a logical specification, is a long-standing challenge in formal verification. It is elusive for two reasons: It is algorithmically hard, and writing formal specifications by hand is notoriously difficult. In this paper, we tackle both sides of the problem. For the algorithmic side, we present a neuro-symbolic approach to reactive synthesis that couples large reasoning models with model checkers to iteratively repair a synthesized Verilog implementation via sound symbolic feedback. Our approach solves more benchmarks than the best dedicated tools in the annual synthesis competition and extends to constructing parameterized systems, a problem known to be undecidable. On the specification side, we introduce an autoformalization step that shifts the specification task from temporal logic to natural language by introducing a hand-authored dataset of natural-language specifications for evaluation. We demonstrate performance comparable to that of starting from formal specifications, establishing natural synthesis as a viable end-to-end workflow.

Natural-language software requirements are often ambiguous, inconsistent, and underspecified; in safety-critical domains, these defects propagate into formal models that verify the wrong specification and into implementations that ship unsafe behavior. We show that large language models, equipped with an SMT solver, can audit such requirements: translating them into formal logic, detecting ambiguity through stochastic variation in the generated formalization, and exposing inconsistency, vacuousness, and safety violations through solver queries on the resulting specification. We present VERIMED, a neurosymbolic pipeline that operationalizes this idea for medical-device software requirements, and report two findings. First, stochastic variation across independent formalizations is a signal of ambiguity: requirements that admit multiple plausible interpretations produce SMT-inequivalent formalizations, and bidirectional SMT equivalence checking turns this disagreement into a solver-checkable test. Second, the usefulness of symbolic feedback depends on its granularity: in counterexample-guided repair on a hemodialysis question-answering benchmark, concrete SMT counterexamples raise verified accuracy from 55.4% to 98.5%. Over an extensive experimental evaluation on open-source hemodialysis safety requirements, we show that the LLM-based approach in VERIMED successfully reduces ambiguity-sensitive requirements and enables rigorous auditing of software requirements through SMT-based queries.

The companion paper introduced a four-level verification lattice on agent-skill manifests (unverified, declared, tested, formal) and left the top level aspirational. This paper closes that gap. We give a precise semantics for skill behaviour faithful to how a skill is consumed by an LLM-driven runtime (a deterministic script-side reachable through a non-deterministic LLM-side), state the verification problem as a capability-containment property over that semantics, and present three composable methods that together raise a skill from declared or tested to formal: (1) sound static capability-containment analysis of the script-side via abstract interpretation over a small effect lattice; (2) a refinement type system for tool-call envelopes that mechanically rejects any call whose statically-inferred capability is not in the manifest's declared set; (3) SMT-bounded model checking against the parent paper's biconditional correctness criterion, with the bound chosen so any counter-example fitting the runtime's transaction-buffer horizon is exhibited as a concrete trace. We prove the three layers composed soundly cover the parent paper's threat model modulo a single residual (the LLM's freedom to refuse to act) that the parent paper's runtime biconditional catches at session boundary. The methods reuse existing well-engineered tools (Z3, Semgrep, CodeQL, refinement-type checkers, mechanised proof assistants) rather than asking operators to build new ones, and the proof-carrying artifact extends the existing SKILL.md convention. All three methods plus the bundle producer and re-checker ship as zero-dependency JavaScript modules in the open-source enclawed framework (https://github.com/metereconsulting/enclawed; project page https://www.enclawed.com/), with 53 unit tests and an end-to-end CLI demo on a sample skill.

Neural network verification is an active and rapidly maturing research area, with a growing ecosystem of solvers and tools. The VNN-LIB standard was introduced to support interoperability in this ecosystem, but Version1.0 has several serious short-comings as a formal foundation: it lacks a precise syntax, semantics, and type system, offers limited expressivity, and relies on externally defined ONNX models whose semantics are informal and constantly evolving. The latter distinguishes VNN-LIB from established standards such as SMT-LIB, where queries are self-contained and have fixed semantics. In this paper we address these challenges by developing the theoretical foundations of VNN-LIB2.0. Our key contribution is the introduction of the notion of a \emph{network theory}, which abstractly characterises the minimal semantic interface required from a neural network model format. This abstraction enables VNN-LIB to be defined independently of any specific ONNX version while remaining compatible with evolving model representations. Building on this foundation, we present a formal syntax for a more expressive query language, a type system for it over the numeric domains provided by the network theory, and finally a formal semantics. To ensure internal consistency, the standard is mechanised in the Agda theorem prover. VNN-LIB~2.0 therefore provides robust and rigorous foundations for trustworthy neural network verification.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled workflows that generate SystemVerilog Assertions (SVAs) from natural-language specifications, with the potential to accelerate Formal Verification (FV). However, high-quality assertion synthesis remains challenging because specifications are often ambiguous or incomplete and critical micro-architectural details reside in the Register Transfer Level (RTL). Many existing approaches treat the specification and RTL as loosely structured text, which weakens specification-to-RTL grounding and leads to semantic mismatches and frequent syntax failures during formal parsing and elaboration. This work addresses these limitations with a verification-centric Knowledge Graph (KG) constructed from structured Intermediate Representations (IRs) extracted from the specification, RTL, and formal-tool feedback, including syntax diagnostics, Counterexamples (CEXs), and coverage reports. The KG links requirements, design hierarchy, signals, assumptions, and properties to provide traceable, design-grounded context for generation. A multi-agent workflow queries and updates this KG to generate SVAs and to drive three refinement loops: syntax repair guided by tool diagnostics, CEX-guided correction using trace links, and coverage-directed property augmentation. Evaluation across seven benchmark designs indicates that KG-based context retrieval improves specification-to-RTL grounding and consistently produces compilable SVAs with low syntax-repair overhead. The approach achieves formal coverage ranging from 78.5% to 99.4%, though convergence exhibits design dependence with complex temporal and arithmetic reasoning remaining challenging for current LLM capabilities.

We introduce an evaluation framework of 500 C verification tasks across five property types (memory safety, overflow, termination, reachability, data races) built on SV-COMP 2025, and evaluate 14 models across six families. We find that high overall accuracy masks a critical weakness: while most models reliably confirm properties hold, violation detection varies widely and degrades sharply with program length. To close this gap, we train on formal verification artifacts: running the Soteria symbolic execution engine on generic open-source C code and using the resulting traces for continued pretraining of Qwen3-8B. Just ${\sim}$3,000 bug traces combined with chain-of-thought reasoning at inference time improve violation detection by over 17 percentage points, producing one of the most balanced accuracy profiles among evaluated models. On violation detection, the trained 8B model outperforms the 4$\times$ larger Qwen3-32B without thinking and approaches it in overall accuracy. The interaction between trace training and chain-of-thought is superadditive: neither alone provides meaningful gains, but their combination does. Improvements transfer across all five property types, including ones the training traces do not target. Our 28 configurations confirm the gains stem from trace semantics, not code volume, and that trace curation and format matter.

Formal specification is essential for rigorous program verification, yet writing correct specifications remains costly and difficult to automate. Although large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear. We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs. We introduce LiveFMBench, a continuously evolving benchmark of 630 ACSL (ANSI/ISO C Specification Language)-annotated C programs, including 360 newly collected cases designed to mitigate data leakage. Using this benchmark, we evaluate direct prompting with different sampling sizes, reasoning-enabled (thinking mode) inference, the agentic pipeline, and perform a fine-grained failure analysis. Experimental results reveal that naive evaluation substantially overestimates performance because models under direct prompting may exhibit unfaithful behaviors, such as deceiving automated provers or ignoring code-context constraints; after excluding such cases, the true specification generation accuracy drops by approximately 20%. We further find that both increased sampling and thinking mode significantly improve success rates, with smaller models benefiting more from thinking mode. Agentic pipelines are particularly effective under low sampling budgets and on harder datasets. Failure analysis further shows that incorrect loop invariants are the dominant error type, while agentic pipelines notably reduce assertion errors. These results expose fundamental limitations in current LLM-based approaches and suggest they remain far from replacing human-authored formal specifications. We release LiveFMBench at https://huggingface.co/datasets/fm-universe/Live-FM-Bench and all evaluation artifacts to support future research.

The primary goal of Design Verification (DV) is to ensure that a proposed chip design implementation (either in code, or physical form) exactly matches its specification and is free of functional errors in order to avoid costly re-designs. Achieving this often demands extensive manual interpretation, translating the specification document into a formal, testable representation. While AI has made progress in DV, current approaches typically focus on narrow, isolated tasks rather than full end-to-end specification compliance of modern chip designs, failing to capture the complexity of real-world verification. Our method automatically formalizes natural language memory chip specifications, for industry relevant Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) standards, into a formal representation called DRAMPyML that can be used for downstream DV tasks like the generation of SystemVerilog assertions, stimulus, and functional coverage. We also release our benchmarking dataset, DRAMBench, which can be used to evaluate the evolution of model capabilities (and new approaches) at hardware autoformalization.

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.

We present a formally verified framework for patent analysis as a hybrid AI + Lean 4 pipeline. The DAG-coverage core (Algorithm 1b) is fully machine-verified once bounded match scores are fixed. Freedom-to-operate, claim-construction sensitivity, cross-claim consistency, and doctrine-of-equivalents analyses are formalized at the specification level with kernel-checked candidate certificates. Existing patent-analysis approaches rely on manual expert analysis (slow, non-scalable) or ML/NLP methods (probabilistic, opaque, non-compositional). To our knowledge, this is the first framework that applies interactive theorem proving based on dependent type theory to intellectual property analysis. Claims are encoded as DAGs in Lean 4, match strengths as elements of a verified complete lattice, and confidence scores propagate through dependencies via proven-correct monotone functions. We formalize five IP use cases (patent-to-product mapping, freedom-to-operate, claim construction sensitivity, cross-claim consistency, doctrine of equivalents) via six algorithms. Structural lemmas, the coverage-core generator, and the closed-path identity coverage = W_cov are machine-verified in Lean 4. Higher-level theorems for the other use cases remain informal proof sketches, and their proof-generation functions are architecturally mitigated (untrusted generators whose outputs are kernel-checked and sorry-free axiom-audited). Guarantees are conditional on the ML layer: they certify mathematical correctness of computations downstream of ML scores, not the accuracy of the scores themselves. A case study on a synthetic memory-module claim demonstrates weighted coverage and construction-sensitivity analysis. Validation against adjudicated cases is future work.