Formal Verification

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Formal verification studies rigorous ways to show that systems satisfy properties such as safety, security, and correctness. It represents systems and requirements with logic, then uses theorem proving, model checking, SMT solving, static analysis, and runtime monitoring to prove properties or find counterexamples. These methods apply to software, hardware, protocols, neural networks, robotics, and AI agents, where failures can be costly and testing covers only selected executions. Current work combines automation and language models to reduce proof effort, but scalability and whether specifications faithfully capture intended behavior remain central challenges.

Latest papers 320

44 papers in the last four weeks, up 91% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Aug 3, 2026

EntailLLM: Verifying LLM-Generated Vulnerability Discovery Paths with Domain Knowledge via Logic Programming

Large language models are increasingly used to reason about software vulnerabilities, but their outputs can silently violate domain knowledge, limiting their reliability in safety-critical settings such as medical devices. Prior work either treats that output as a prediction to be scored or constrains it to walks within a single knowledge graph; neither checks whether reasoning over a binary is consistent with an independent body of domain knowledge. We present EntailLLM, which validates each LLM-proposed analyst path by entailment: the path is a traversal of the binary's function call graph, the domain knowledge is represented in a separate graph, and verification aligns the two under temporal annotated logic. Across three CWE classes, four LLMs, three prompting strategies, and seven binaries varying in size from 405 to 12,696 function call-graph nodes, domain knowledge raises pooled entailment from 78% to 98%, with entailment decreasing in only 3% of the experiments. EntailLLM is deployed end-to-end on real medical-device binaries, reaching 98% pooled entailment without per-device tuning. Our system inherits the formal guarantees of generalized annotated logic, providing logical verification of LLM output that is both explainable and grounded in well-defined semantics.

Kaustuv Mukherji, Jaikrishna Manojkumar Patil, Colton Payne +4

Syracuse University · HRL Laboratories

Logic Programming Software Vulnerability Detection Formal Verification LLM Reliability LLMs for Cybersecurity

Aug 2, 2026

Alternating-Time Temporal Logic with Mean-Payoff Guarantees

Alternating-time temporal logic and its extensions provide several ways of combining strategic and quantitative reasoning. We study a particular combination: whether a coalition has a single strategy that enforces a temporal objective while guaranteeing given long-run mean-payoff thresholds. We introduce ATL_mp, an extension of ATL over weighted concurrent game structures in which each strategic modality carries a conjunctive mean-payoff constraint. The temporal and quantitative requirements must hold against every behaviour of the remaining agents, and the existence of such a strategy cannot in general be reduced to the two requirements considered separately. For one-dimensional constraints, model checking is 2EXPTIME-complete under both perfect-recall and finite-memory semantics, matching ATL*. For the pure quantitative fragment and fragments restricted to ATL or GR(1) temporal objectives, model checking has lower complexity. With multi-dimensional conjunctive constraints, model checking under finite-memory semantics remains 2EXPTIME-complete. We show that memoryless, finite-memory, and perfect-recall abilities form a strict hierarchy, while finite-memory strategies still achieve every threshold strictly below the perfect-recall supremum. We give tight linear upper and lower bounds on the required memory as a function of the denominator of the threshold, even when the game and temporal monitor are fixed. We give several examples of properties expressible in the logic, including temporal synthesis with performance guarantees and aggregate and multi-criteria objectives. We also relate the logic to cooperative rational verification, showing that it can express beneficial deviations from fixed payoff baselines, but not directly reproduce the standard ATL* encoding of the core for dichotomous preferences.

Muhammad Najib

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

Game Theory Formal Verification

Aug 2, 2026

Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety

Runtime safety monitors based on Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) and finite automata (FSA) are increasingly deployed to intercept unsafe tool-call sequences in LLM agents. Yet the same monitor achieves 68-75% attack coverage on some model architectures and near-zero on others, with no explanation from capability scores, training data, or prompt design. We provide the missing theory. We prove that the recall of any fixed-invariant FSA monitor is bounded above by the concentration of the attack distribution: the fraction of attacks covered by the k most frequent trigger-completion patterns. When attacks concentrate (low Shannon entropy), a small fixed invariant set achieves high recall; when they disperse across many structurally distinct patterns (high entropy), no fixed invariant set of tractable size can, regardless of how the invariants were derived. We validate this entropy-coverage bound across eight frontier LLM architectures. GPT-class and DeepSeek backends yield highly concentrated attacks (H ~ 0.24 bits; one pattern covers 96%), explaining 68-75% recall; Gemini variants yield high-entropy distributions (H ~ 2.81 bits; 7 clusters each <= 7%), explaining near-zero recall (6-13%), invariant to architecture-matched retraining. Entropy accounts for 76% of variance in coverage (Pearson r = -0.87, p = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.78]), holding under leave-one-out (r in [-0.91, -0.82]). We introduce a pre-deployment entropy test that predicts monitor coverage from a small attack sample, enabling architecture-aware monitor selection before deployment. The bound and test are architecture-agnostic and apply to any FSA-based runtime monitor over discrete action sequences.

Ruiyang Zhang

Ryonix Labs Inc. Flock.io

Formal Verification AI Agent Monitoring LLM Agent Safety Information-Theoretic Lower Bounds Runtime Verification

Aug 2, 2026

An AI Approach to Verified Production Cryptographic Libraries

Cryptographic code is critical infrastructure that must be correct, yet formally verifying production libraries remains difficult. Existing language-model proof systems solve isolated obligations with specifications and premises already given, leaving production-library verification unresolved. We present CryptoProver, an AI-based system that synthesizes internal specifications and Verus-checked proofs from high-level API contracts. Without changing executable code, CryptoProver constructs a new independent proof of curve25519-dalek and verifies RustCrypto's previously unverified chacha20 implementation against an RFC 8439 specification. These cryptographic lineages underpin deployed systems including Signal and Shadowsocks; Signal has an estimated 218M global downloads. The independent, human-led curve25519-dalek verification was developed publicly over eight months by five main contributors. Given the API contracts and a fixed trusted library of field specifications, arithmetic facts, axioms, and vstd, CryptoProver synthesizes the internal specifications and proofs in 11.4 hours with USD 466.99 in recorded API cost. CryptoProver follows a trust-first design principle: mechanical gates reject specification weakening, invented axioms, and cross-module breakage, while isolation blocks reference proof retrieval, including from git history.

Chuyue Sun, Su Fong, Zhiyi Kuang +5

Stanford University · &Truth · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill +2

Software Security Program Synthesis Formal Verification

Aug 1, 2026

Assuming You Knew: Fixing an Epistemic Semantics for Flow Policies Using Agentic AI

Many high-level security requirements are about the allowed flow of information in programs and are difficult to make precise because they involve selective downgrading. Notions from epistemic logic have emerged as a good approach to policy semantics but a robust general framework remains elusive. A paper appearing in CSF 2018, entitled ``Assuming You Know: Epistemic Semantics of Relational Annotations for Expressive Flow Policies'', attempted to provide a unifying framework---but the formalization was sketchy and a correction was announced during the conference presentation. With aid from an agentic AI coding assistant, a corrected formalization has been machine checked in the Rocq proof assistant. The simplicity and generality of the framework may help compare different policy specification styles and enforce them by leveraging existing techniques.

David A. Naumann

Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

Logical Reasoning Formal Verification Information Flow Control Epistemic Logic

Aug 1, 2026

Verifiable Checks for Business Rule Consistency

Maintaining consistency between natural language documentation of business rules and their evolving internal implementations is a significant challenge in large-scale systems. We present SIRNA, a tool and framework for checking such consistency using SMT solvers. Using the case study of cost calculations in tax domains, we demonstrate a three-part system that combines large language models (LLMs) with formal verification methods. SIRNA translates natural language documentation into candidate SMT formulas using LLMs, followed by checks to validate the translations. Then, corresponding business rules are converted into equivalent SMT representations and validated against the natural language formalizations. Our method is generalizable to domains where business logic exists in both natural language documentation and programmatic implementation. Compared to baseline evaluations, SIRNA significantly reduces the number of false positives and false negatives while offering explainability for its findings.

Joseph Tafese, Milad Hooshyar, Sam Bayless +2

University of Waterloo · Waterloo, Canada · Amazon +1

Formal Verification

Aug 1, 2026

Tensor Probabilistic Model Checking of Finite-Horizon Markov Chains (Extended Version)

We reexamine the problem of verifying Markov chains with respect to step-bounded reachability probabilities. Prevailing approaches rely on encoding the state-transition matrix using either explicit or symbolic representations. While these approaches are effective for sparse transition dynamics, they scale less favorably in the dense regime. Our insight is to cast probabilistic model checking of Markov chains as computations over dense tensors. This methodology enables the use of off-the-shelf compiler toolchains for optimized execution of these tensor computations on hardware accelerators. We prove the soundness of the methodology of mapping probabilistic model checking to tensor computations. We implement our approach in a tool called Tessa . Empirical evaluation shows that Tessa unlocks massive speedups over state-of-theart methods on selected benchmarks from the literature.

Jianlin Li, Nick Guo, Peter Ye +1

David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Canada

Reachability Analysis Markov Models Formal Verification

Jul 30, 2026

Open-Source LLM-Driven Formal Verification: A Multi-Agent Pipeline for RTL Repair

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.

Ha Trung Tran

Independent Researcher · Seattle, WA, USA

Formal Hardware Verification Automated Program Repair Program Synthesis Formal Verification

Jul 30, 2026

LeanCSP: A Framework for Certifying Constraint Reformulation and Solving in Lean

Constraint programming is a core technology for solving complex combinatorial problems in scheduling, planning, configuration, and verification. Trusting its results therefore demands guarantees at two levels: that reformulations applied beforehand are semantics-preserving, and that solvers produce correct answers. In this work, we introduce a framework that addresses both verification levels in the Lean theorem prover: it can be used to prove formulation-level properties, such as equivalence, equisatisfiability, and the correctness of symmetry-breaking constraints, parametrically for entire problem families; and to check solver-produced certificates for individual instances via translation backends to external formats such as MiniZinc, SMT-LIB, and OPB. Combining both levels yields an end-to-end workflow that establishes the satisfiability or unsatisfiability of a constraint problem without trusting the external solver. Experimental results show that our framework's verified symmetry breaking also pays off in practice: a single parametric proof per problem family, reused across all instance sizes, reduces solver search effort by a factor of up to 2x10^7, while the entire in-Lean certification stays affordable, taking at most a few minutes for our largest instances.

Pablo Manrique, Stefan Szeider

Algorithms and Complexity Group TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

Symmetry Breaking Formal Verification Constraint Programming

Jul 30, 2026

WitCert: Sound Runtime Risk Observability and Gating for KV-Cache Quantization

KV-cache quantization is validated today by offline benchmark averages; a deployed system cannot tell whether compression is damaging the request it is serving right now. We give it a provably sound runtime meter -- a "DTrace for KV quantization": a per-(layer, head, step) upper bound on the total variation between exact and compressed attention. The meter has two tiers: a deterministic band-norm-witness bound, sound for any cache-preserving black-box quantizer and for any query (adaptive-safe, worst-case Cauchy--Schwarz plus RoPE band-unitarity), and a tighter probabilistic certificate for a controlled subtractively-dithered INT8 quantizer under an explicit request-level failure budget (stated for non-adaptive queries; core theorems machine-checked in Lean 4). Three results. Observability: the meter enters SGLang through an env-guarded patch, and any scheme registered as one tensor function is measured in live serving. Repair: meter-driven gating -- risk-ranked where the witness is saturated, certified where it is informative -- empirically restores the quality floor at benchmark scale, e.g. raw-cast fp8 from 22.8 back to 79.7 on hard RULER tasks with the difference from uncompressed bounded at

[+0.0,+0.8]

by a paired test. Analysis: aggressive schemes survive on cross-layer error cancellation, not per-step fidelity -- in a 28-layer sweep, no single layer's pollution alone loses anything (0/28) -- and the certified int8 cache serves

1.88\times

more KV tokens at the same memory in SGLang. All artifacts, guards, and the Lean development are released at https://github.com/metask-ai/witcert-kv-certificates; every number regenerates from the shipped artifacts by one command.

Fanzhe Wei, Li Liu, Ziyang Wang +1

Metask Lab

KV Caching Memory-Efficient Inference Formal Verification Attention Quantization KV-Cache Quantization Runtime Verification

Jul 30, 2026

Specification-Guided Synthesis of Deadlock-Free Communication Protocol Refinements with Large Language Models

Ensuring behavioural correctness in communication protocols is a central challenge in distributed software systems, as subtle inconsistencies can lead to deadlocks. In such settings, protocol refinement - the safe substitution of a protocol that preserves correctness and compatibility with other components - is essential. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in code generation and program synthesis, yet lack mechanisms to reliably produce outputs with correct behaviour. Formal specification approaches, such as multiparty session types (MPST), offer rigorous guarantees, including deadlock freedom, but provide limited support for automatically constructing protocol refinements. In this paper, we present Syntropy, a framework for synthesising protocol refinements guided by MPST specifications and LLMs. It incorporates refinement constraints directly into the generation process, ensuring the generated variants satisfy these guarantees. Our comprehensive evaluation indicates that Syntropy achieves 95.6%-99.5% validity while maintaining high syntactic correctness, and produces diverse, non-trivial refinements across multiple LLMs.

Yang Li, Ping Hou, Nobuko Yoshida

University of Oxford Computer Science Oxford, United Kingdom

LLM-Based Program Synthesis Formal Verification

Jul 30, 2026

VeriSkill: A Self-Evolution Framework for Program Verification Skills

Automating program verification with LLM agents requires generating specifications, annotations, auxiliary lemmas, and tool invocations, all of which depend on reusable skills. A natural remedy is skill self-evolution: distilling skills from trajectories and refining them through feedback. However, existing evolution methods struggle with program verification tasks because they cannot reliably identify skill-specific failures or extract actionable signals from opaque verifier feedback. In this paper, we propose VeriSkill, a self-evolution framework built for program verification. It attributes verification failures to skill deficiencies, distills diagnostic signatures into reusable lessons, and iteratively refines candidate skills, admitting only revisions that improve verification performance while preserving program semantics. Experiments show that VeriSkill consistently outperforms all baselines across multiple verification tools, agent frameworks, and LLM backends.

Changguo Jia, Tianqi Zhao, Zhiyou Xiao +2

Peking University, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Laboratory, Beijing, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

LLM Agent Self-Improvement Formal Verification LLM Agent Skill Learning LLM Agent Verification

Jul 28, 2026

Specula: Scaling formal specifications for autonomous model checking of system code

Specula is a push-button agentic system that generates high-quality formal specifications for large, complex system code and uses the specifications for highly effective model checking and bug finding. Specula employs large language model (LLM) based coding agents to autonomously develop TLA+ specifications, including invariants that describe correctness properties of the target system and formal models that describe the system implementation with the right level of abstractions. Specula is fully autonomous and thus eliminates the barrier of applying formal methods to real-world system code (as in traditional human-centric approaches). Meanwhile, Specula addresses limitations of LLM-driven techniques like reward hacking and hallucinations through self-evolving loops that iteratively improve specification quality by enabling the agents to deepen their understanding of system code and its behaviors. We have used Specula to check 48 open-source system projects; Specula found 249 bugs including many deep bugs that are hard to find by existing approaches. Specula has been used by several companies and is maintained at https://github.com/specula-org/Specula.

Qian Cheng, Saad Mohammad Rafid Pial, Ruize Tang +6

Nanjing University Nanjing, China · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA · Microsoft Research Asia Beijing, China +1

Software Engineering Agents Formal Verification Autoformalization

Jul 26, 2026

PULSE: An Executable Contract Language for Spatiotemporal Knowledge Graph Engineering

Knowledge graph engineering often distributes accepted state, observations, constraints, processes, and hypothetical scenarios across artifacts whose combined execution contract remains external. We present PULSE, an Object-Process-Methodology-inspired language that localizes four operational roles and their write effects in one typed runtime. Here, modes denote operational roles rather than modal or deontic logic. The implemented contract fixes evidence non-overwrite, branch isolation, grounded multi-subject timers, guarded state change, and declaration-ranked event ordering over time and space; an external runner still decides whether evidence becomes an authoritative move. GeoSPARQL, SOSA, and SHACL remain generated views. A core calculus gives an effect-confinement lemma and six safety properties. Lean 4 checks kernel analogues for positions, evidence, clocks, monitors, atomicity, and branch source retention; 88 tests, 3,534 bounded checks, and 32 Lean/Python runtime-kernel cases bound the implementation claim to the checked cases. First-author implementations of a standards composition and a separate Sismic statechart reproduce the tested cold-chain trace. Across 37,440 generated temporal traces, PULSE matches a separate workflow and distinguishes ten single-field mutants. On the complete NOAA IBTrACS since1980 subset it agrees with GEOS and an event sweep on 1,476,290 transition-zone pairs, including 4,800 sampled and 12,831 duration-qualified events. Project-specific GeoSPARQL probes measure interface coverage. Overall, the results support contract localization, safety arguments, and trace parity for the tested fragment; language superiority and usability remain outside the evaluation.

Dongxu Yang, Ziyi Liang

DeepLethe

KG Construction Spatiotemporal Reasoning Formal Verification Knowledge Graphs

Jul 26, 2026

Formally Verified Synthesizable Floating-Point Data Types in ARCH HDL

We report the design and end-to-end verification of first-class IEEE-754 binary32 (FP32) and bfloat16 (BF16) arithmetic for ARCH, a hardware description language intended to be generated by language models. Every operator - comparisons, conversions, add, sub, mul, and fused multiply-add (FMA) - is described once against a single bit-vector IR and rendered three ways from one source: synthesizable SystemVerilog, an SMT-LIB model, and a Lean 4 proof model. The three artifacts cannot drift apart structurally, and the residual per-node printer correspondence is machine-checked: a Yosys-to-SMT miter proves the emitted SystemVerilog equivalent to the SMT model for all 24 operators. Verification splits at the solver-tractability frontier: multiplier-free operators (comparisons, add/sub over all 2^64 inputs, conversions, and all binary BF16 arithmetic) are proved exhaustively equivalent to the SMT-LIB FloatingPoint theory; the SAT-hard multiplier-bearing operators (FP32 mul and FMA) are proved correctly rounded in Lean, sorry-free, against a value-level round-to-nearest-even specification over exact dyadic values. Physical characterization exposed the FMA as the timing outlier: its exact-wide 470-bit datapath does not pipeline in our flow. We reimplemented it as a bounded 98-bit guard/round/sticky datapath that pipelines to 268 MHz on Nangate45, and proved, in Lean and over all 2^96 inputs, that it is bit-identical to the exact-wide reference, so it inherits the reference's proven correct rounding. The equivalence is tractable precisely because the shared multiplier appears on both sides and cancels: neither a SAT solver nor the proof ever solves a multiplier equivalence. (The BF16 FMA is deliberately an FP32-accumulating fusion, characterized as exactly that.) All machine-checked claims are pinned to a tagged open-source release.

Shuqing Zhao

Formal Hardware Verification Formal Verification

Jul 26, 2026

Formalizing Flag Algebras in Lean

Razborov's flag algebra method is a powerful tool for proving asymptotic inequalities in extremal graph theory, often reducing the task to finding a finite certificate by semidefinite programming. We present a machine-checked formalization of the method for finite simple graphs, together with a certificate-to-proof compiler that turns externally generated certificate data into algebraic proofs checked by Lean. The formalization covers the foundations of the method: partially labeled graphs, their densities in large graphs, the quotient algebra of density expressions, graph-limit semantics through positive homomorphisms, and the downward operators used to average out labels. The compiler treats the external semidefinite programming output as candidate data rather than trusted input: Lean independently computes the required density and multiplication facts, verifies positive semidefiniteness exactly over

\mathbb{Q}

, and carries out the algebraic normalization steps of flag-algebra proofs. Our case studies yield formal proofs of seven Turán-type upper bounds, including Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, a

C_4

-density bound for triangle-free graphs, and edge-density bounds for

K_4

-free,

K_5

-free, and

C_5

-free graphs. Independently of the compiler, we formalize the matching constructions that complete the exact Turán densities of Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, and prove two inequalities of Goodman. Our constrained semantics also prompted a meta-theoretic comparison of two ways of imposing graph constraints: building a hereditary constraint into the flag algebra from the start, or testing inequalities afterward on constrained graph limits with labels chosen at random. We state the resulting root-plantability criterion characterizing when the two approaches agree; a forthcoming paper will present the complete account.

Gyeongwon Jeong, Seonghun Park, Jihoon Hyun +2

School of Computing, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea · School of Computational Sciences, Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS), Seoul, Korea · Discrete Mathematics Group, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Daejeon, Korea +1

Formal Verification

Jul 26, 2026

TLA+-Bench: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark and Dataset for Natural-Language to TLA Specification Generation

Large language models increasingly write TLA

^{+}

formal specifications from natural-language descriptions, but progress is hard to measure: existing resources grade by resemblance to a reference or by whether the output parses, neither of which shows correctness. We present TLA

^{+}

-Bench, a dataset and benchmark that grades by execution. Every gold specification ships a configuration the TLA

^{+}

model checker runs over the full reachable state space, deciding exactly whether the specification holds the properties that configuration names. The dataset holds 403 model-checked gold and 897 parse-only silver specifications from 13 public repositories, subsumes prior TLA

^{+}

generation data, and carries four model-written descriptions in two styles from two providers, with difficulty and category labels. Our main finding is about measurement itself: an exact oracle gives not one correctness number but a range. Varying only the grading choices earlier benchmarks leave unstated, on one fixed set of model outputs, the correct rate moves sixfold, from 10.0% to 1.7%; adding the interface-supply choice, where the model is told the configuration's names, widens the range to elevenfold, from 18.7% to 1.7%. We call this range the correctness envelope and measure each of its bounds. The findings inside it are stable. Every model writes valid TLA

^{+}

far more often than correct TLA

^{+}

: the strongest is correct 16% of the time by default and 26% when given the interface names, open models at most 1%, and correctness falls sharply with difficulty.

Arslan Bisharat, Eric Spencer, Brian Ortiz +8

Loyola University Chicago Chicago, Illinois, USA

LLM Evaluation Formal Verification Autoformalization

Jul 25, 2026

Emergent Behaviour in Financial Markets

Some properties of so-called complex or collective systems can be observed to emerge from the interactions of elementary agents. This phenomenon, known as emergent behaviour, has long since been studied in the most diverse disciplines, with recent growing awareness from the formal methods community about the opportunity of opening up to seemingly distant disciplines with appropriate technology for computer-aided reasoning. Different peculiar elements of complexity make automated reasoning on these systems particularly challenging. We consider electronic financial markets to drive our discussion. We identify and structure the sources of complexity to tackle in order to provide computational support for the analysis of emergent phenomena. We refrain from evaluating the suitability of specific technical solutions or frameworks of preference, which would as usual require simplifying assumptions and divert from the actual phenomenon of interest. Rather, we elaborate on possible alternatives to handle some of the main technical aspects involved in automated analysis, while retaining a solid and concrete interpretation of the domain, and in doing so outline a more systematic research program for the formal specification and analysis of market mechanisms.

Omar Inverso, Emilio Tuosto, Dragisa Zunic

Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy

Formal Verification Finance

Jul 24, 2026

CausalSmith: A Formally Grounded, Self-Improving Agentic Framework for Automated Research in Causal Inference

Automating theoretical research requires generating candidate results and evaluating them reliably. Models keep getting better at the first, while the second remains hard. A common approach asks one large language model (LLM) to review what another produced, yet such reviewers are empirically unreliable: they may accept fabricated papers and catch the fabrication at close to chance rates~\citep{badscientist2025}. We present CausalSmith, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee. CausalSmith rests on Causalean, a foundational Lean library for causal inference holding 8,179 machine-checked definitions and theorems, developed with language-model assistance under human design and review. Around it, we build a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes statements, constructs proofs, and presents the resulting artifacts for human inspection. Moreover, the pipeline pairs Lean verification with a statement audit that compares each formal theorem against the informal claim behind it. We evaluate the system using artifacts produced by completed autonomous research runs. The source code, formal library, and run records are available at https://github.com/Jiyuan-Tan/CausalSmith.

Jiyuan Tan, Vasilis Syrgkanis

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Automated Theorem Proving Formal Verification Causal Inference Autonomous Research Agents

Jul 23, 2026

Towards a Certifying Grounder

Grounding, the translation of high-level theories into equivalent quantifier-free formulas, is a crucial step in declarative solving, yet it has so far escaped the proof-logging revolution. When this grounding step is not certifying, there is no way of knowing that the obtained solutions actually correspond to the original problem specification, resulting in a trust gap. In this paper, we close the trust gap between the user's high-level specification and the solver's low-level input by introducing a novel certifying grounding framework for first-order logic model expansion (FOX) over finite domains. We present CertiFOX, a framework consisting of: (1) a proof format for grounding derivations, (2) GroundFOX, a certifying grounder operating on theories in Grounding Normal Form (GNF)--a new normal form designed for compact, domain-aware grounding--and (3) CheckFOX, an independent proof checker. Our approach guarantees that the grounder's output is equivalent to the input specification, setting the stage for trustworthy end-to-end certified solving pipelines for declarative languages. Experimental evaluation confirms that CertiFOX is a feasible approach. The GroundFOX grounder is broadly comparable with other grounders, and proof checking with CheckFOX adds overhead within a small constant factor of grounding time.

Daimy Van Caudenberg, Alexander Ek, Carlos Cantero +1

KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium · ARC Training Centre OPTIMA, Melbourne, Australia · Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Formal Verification

Jul 23, 2026

Animation, Verification and Visualisation of Prolog Transition Systems with ProB

ProB is a Prolog-based model checker, animator and constraint solver for high-level formal specifications. One can also use ProB to animate transition systems defined by Prolog predicates, allowing the application of its various validation techniques. In this work, we present the existing features of ProB's Prolog animation mode and its recent extensions. The extended capabilities include simulation for statistical checks, more reliable trace replay, transitions with user input and improved state visualisation. We apply the new features to case studies, particularly for evaluating different strategies in game play, such as Connect Four. The features are useful for many other applications, especially for ProB's new sequent prover for Event-B proof obligations, as well as for demonstration models for teaching in combination with interactive visualisation.

Jan Gruteser, Michael Leuschel, Katharina Engels +1

Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Institute of Computer Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf

Logic Programming Formal Verification

Jul 23, 2026

Encoding Event-B Proof Rules in Prolog: An Interactive Sequent Prover for ProB

Event-B is a formal method rooted in predicate logic and set theory. We encoded over 600 proof rules in Prolog, enabling a systematic, comprehensible proof analysis and construction. By integrating the proof rules into the Prolog-based validation tool ProB, we obtain an interactive proof system with proof tree visualisation. This has advantages in teaching, giving students direct control over the selection of proof rules. Our tool can import proof obligations from the Rodin platform and provides multiple exports: a trace file for proof replay in ProB, an interactive HTML document for tool-independent exploration of the proof tree, and an export back to Rodin, allowing the ProB prover to be used as second chain. Compared to the previous implementation of the proof rules in Java, the encoding in Prolog is more compact, maintainable and extensible. While a preliminary iterative deepening prover with simple heuristics is already available and useful for finding short proofs, we aim to obtain fast automatic provers in the future.

Katharina Engels, Jan Gruteser, Michael Leuschel

Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Institute of Computer Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf

Automated Theorem Proving Interactive Theorem Proving Formal Verification

Jul 22, 2026

Evaluating Large Language Models for Symbolic Security Protocol Analysis

Security protocols verification relies on formal tools such as ProVerif and OFMC. This study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can perform comparable analysis. We test GPT and DeepSeek in chat and reasoning modes over three runs on 130 obfuscated AnB/AnBx protocols covering 388 security goals, scored against ProVerif and OFMC. Each provider uses a single model in both modes, switching reasoning on and off, so both contrasts isolate reasoning itself. Chat models achieve 72.7% recall at 27.3% precision for GPT and 69.3% recall at 27.2% precision for DeepSeek. Reasoning models reverse this trade-off, reaching 66.5% precision and 54.5% recall for GPT and 45.4% precision and 57.3% recall for DeepSeek. Enabling reasoning lifts precision from 27.3% to 64.8% for GPT and from 27.2% to 44.4% for DeepSeek on the consolidated verdict. The goal set is imbalanced, with 89 vulnerable goals against 299 secure ones; a trivial always-secure predictor scores 77.1% accuracy, which only GPT reasoning exceeds. All models perform worst on authentication goals: reasoning models detect well under half of injective and non-injective agreement attacks, whereas chat models over-flag them at low precision. Confidentiality is the exception, with F1 up to 95.7% in reasoning mode. Verdicts are unstable across runs: identical on 89.7% of goals for GPT reasoning, 74.0% for DeepSeek reasoning, 70.1% for GPT chat, and 61.6% for DeepSeek chat. Self-reported confidence is uniformly high yet shows no meaningful correlation with correctness. All results rest on a single zero-shot prompt and two model providers, which limits generalisability. On this benchmark, LLMs do not match formal verification, but may serve, at best, as pre-screening filters.

Paolo Modesti, Syed Ahmed, Ioannis Sfyrakis +1

Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom

LLM Evaluation Cybersecurity Formal Verification LLMs for Cybersecurity

Jul 19, 2026

Lookahead Branching for Neural Network Verification

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.

Liam Davis, Duo Zhou, Huan Zhang +3

Amherst College · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Hebrew University of Jerusalem +1

Neural Network Verification Branch and Bound Formal Verification

Jul 18, 2026

Falsification-Based Verification of LLM-Generated Optimization Models: Sound Test Batteries and Their Detection Limits

Large language models now translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, but they fail silently. A generated model often runs and still formulates the wrong problem. This paper develops a theory of falsification-based verification for this setting. Every numeric quantity in the description is a typed slot, and a candidate model is tested only through solver calls on slot-transformed instances; no reference model or label is consulted. From duality, comparative statics, and polyhedral limit arguments we derive a battery of test classes covering directions, curvature, crush probes, prohibitive limits, annihilation, and exchange. Every test is sound, so a violation certifies unfaithfulness and the false-positive rate is zero by design. We characterize what such verification can never see, give conditions under which the canonical error classes are detected with certainty, and prove that no fixed-threshold perturbation tester is simultaneously sound and nontrivial. Experiments on 326 ground-truth models from NL4OPT and four benchmark families confirm the theory. The battery attains a 0.0% false-positive rate against 54.9% for a threshold tester, detects 70.0% of certified conditional-class mutants, convicts 40.4% of the mutants invisible to execution-accuracy scoring, and reproduces the predicted detectability pattern including its zeros.

Haifeng Li, Mo Hai

School of Information, Central University of Finance and Economics

Metamorphic Testing Formal Verification LLM Reliability Natural Language to Optimization Modeling

Jul 16, 2026

SMC-ES: Automated synthesis of formally verified control policies

The deployment of autonomous cyber-physical systems in safety-critical environments requires closed-loop control strategies (i.e., policies) that are not only performant but also provably safe and robust. While learning-based methodologies such as Reinforcement Learning offer flexible and scalable approaches to automatically synthesize such controllers, they typically lack the formal guarantees necessary for safe deployment. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel simulation-based methodology to automatically synthesize policies with formal guarantees regarding performance, safety, and robustness specifications. Specifically, given a set of properties to verify, a confidence parameter

δ

and an allowable failure probability

\varepsilon

, our method guarantees that the synthesized policy comes with a certificate: with confidence at least

1 - δ

, the probability of encountering a scenario where the given properties are violated is at most

\varepsilon

. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by developing SMC-ES, an algorithm that integrates Evolutionary Strategies with Statistical Model Checking-based verification. We evaluate SMC-ES on a suite of continuous control tasks using Gymnasium and Safety Gymnasium testbeds. Results show that, at the price of a sustainable increase in computational cost, our algorithm provides formal guarantees regarding performance, safety, and robustness specifications, while performing competitively against leading model-free Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) and Safe-DRL baselines.

Riccardo Curcio, Toni Mancini, Enrico Tronci

Department of Computer Science, Sapienza University of Rome, via Salaria 113, 00198 Rome, Italy

Formal Verification Safe RL Robust RL

Jul 15, 2026

The Prover Is the Judge: Verified Security Software from AI Coding Agents in Ada/SPARK

AI coding agents produce code faster than humans can review it. In our approach, the prover is the judge of whether the code is correct. Under a verifier-driven loop, AI agents wrote and verified bare-metal security software in Ada/SPARK spanning classical and post-quantum cryptography, TLS 1.3, IKEv2, X.509, and a Matrix client. GNATprove discharged 49,280 proof obligations, established functional correctness for selected primitives, and proved the absence of run-time errors for the rest, at roughly 20-40 times lower supervision cost than comparable hand verification. GNATprove alone was insufficient: some defects could not be detected and were resolved using known-answer tests, interoperability, or human review of specifications. Given weak checks, the agent tried to bypass them and reported success. We report where each layer caught faults and draw the central lesson: what an agent can be trusted to establish is bounded by the strength of its feedback.

Tobias Philipp

secunet Security Networks AG, Essen, Germany

AI Coding Agents Code Generation Software Security Formal Verification

Jul 14, 2026

Evidence-Grounded Verified Agentic Reasoning: A Path Toward Eliminating LLM Hallucination in Empirical Inference via Tool-Attested Kernel Proofs

Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny. We present EG-VAR (Evidence-Grounded Verified Agentic Reasoning), a Lean 4-based tool-calling architecture in which the Lean kernel is the sole minter of Verified claims via tool-attestation axioms and declared source lifts. Every verified output structurally descends from an attested tool call (Thm. 3.1) and a kernel-checked chain of valid inference (Thm. 3.2); residual outputs are honest Abstain with a replayable audit trail. On a subcollection of TableBench numerical reasoning (n=120), EG-VAR attains 120/120 versus a 95% same-tool baseline; on counterfactual stress tests (5 domains x 2 models), EG-VAR stays 100% source-faithful while same-tool drops to 80-90% (no-tool 50-80%). With the LLM as deployment-time formalizer, residual semantic-formalization error is 3.3% on Sonnet and 1.7% on Opus. We position EG-VAR as a technical-governance interface for high-stakes empirical claims: a formal sidecar makes the target proposition, source scope, evidence boundary, proof obligation, and abstention condition auditable, eliminating unsupported Verified outputs today while turning formalization errors, lift and source-authority disputes, ambiguities, and abstentions into explicit audit targets. Over time, typed sidecars in datasets, APIs, public records, and AI-generated documents can amortize this formalization burden into reusable infrastructure.

Junyu Ren

Committee on Computational and Applied Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

LLM Hallucination Mitigation Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Formal Verification LLM Tool Use Reasoning Verification

Jul 12, 2026

Learning Linear Temporal Specifications from Demonstrations with Uncertainty

Learning temporal logic specifications from system demonstrations is essential for tasks such as formal verification and controller synthesis, especially in safety-critical domains. Existing approaches typically assume demonstrations are correct or only affected by misclassification errors. In practice, however, system traces are often uncertain or incomplete due to sensor faults, measurement errors, or data loss. We present a framework for learning minimal Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas from demonstrations with uncertainty. Our approach models uncertainty via Hamming distance to generate possible estimates around each observed trace, which are grouped with constraints requiring that at least one trace per group is consistent with the learned formula. Our problem is then reduced to an equivalent Pseudo-Boolean Optimization. We evaluate our method against state-of-the-art LTL learning approaches and show that it recovers specifications that more closely align with ground-truth formulas under uncertainty.

Parastou Fahim, Constantino Lagoa, Rômulo Meira-G'oes

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA

Formal Verification Learning from Demonstration Linear Temporal Logic

Jul 11, 2026

Partial Contracts Suffice: Sound, LLM-Inferred Regression Verification

Software evolves continuously, yet ensuring that a patch preserves intended behavior without re-verifying an entire codebase remains difficult. Regression verification addresses this problem, but existing techniques require expensive whole-program reasoning or rely on manually written specifications that are rarely available in practice. We present the first contract-based regression verification tool. Contract soundness is ensured by proving all function versions match the behavior. The contract then verifies program flow via assume-guarantee. We ask whether a partial, caller-sufficient contract, rather than a full behavioral specification, is enough. On Frama-C-Problems we strengthen each inferred contract past what the caller needs and measure how much tighter it becomes. It barely moves: for most targets in every model the caller-sufficient contract is already the tightest the loop reaches, and our tightness comparator rates the partial and strengthened contracts equivalent for the large majority of targets it can compare. Partial-spec contracts thus capture nearly all the attainable tightness, so stopping at caller-sufficiency costs almost nothing. The regression check underneath is sound: on the third-party EqBench-C suite it never fabricates an equivalence, returning zero false proofs and reporting an unprovable difference instead. It also surfaced nine pairs that EqBench mislabels as equivalent, more than a concurrent tool reports. The contracts themselves are inferred automatically from the checker's own counterexamples, with no separate specification step; on Frama-C-Problems and the ANSSI X509 parser this reaches a verification rate comparable to tools AutoSpec and Preguss, while a passing result certifies at least as strong a property, which we call safety-preserving conditional equivalence: enforcement plus caller-sufficiency.

Yiannis Charalambous, Rafael Menezes, Youcheng Sun +1

The University of Manchester

Formal Verification