Formal Verification

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.

Certification methods for stochastic systems provide sufficient proof rules, based on real-valued supermartingale certificates, to determine the almost-sure satisfaction of $ω$-regular properties (and therefore of linear temporal logic) over general state spaces, encompassing both countably infinite and continuous state spaces. Conversely, reinforcement learning (RL) methods for $ω$-regular tasks have received considerable attention, but they typically lack formal guarantees that the learned policy satisfies the specification, except possibly for finite state and action spaces. We bridge these two lines of research by establishing a novel theoretical connection: under an appropriate reward, the value function associated to a policy that almost surely satisfies an $ω$-regular property encodes a Streett supermartingale certificate for that specification. Our results, validated experimentally on finite Markov decision processes, hold for finite, countably infinite, and continuous state spaces, suggesting a principled route to certificate synthesis via RL.

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 present AutoformBot, a multi-agent system for building an Autoformalized Textbook Library At Scale (Atlas) in Lean 4. AutoformBot orchestrates thousands of LLM agents, equipped with formal verification tools, dependency-aware task scheduling, and collaborative version control, to translate informal textbook prose into machine-checked definitions and proofs. We apply our methods to a corpus of 26 open-access textbooks spanning analysis, algebra, topology, combinatorics, and probability, producing Atlas: a verified library of over 45,000 Lean 4 declarations and 500 thousand lines of code. We release two artifacts: (i) AutoformBot, the open-source multi-agent framework; and (ii) Atlas, the resulting formal library. Our results suggest that autoformalizing the core content of graduate-level mathematics at scale is now economically and technically feasible. This opens the door to the automated verification of both human- and machine-generated mathematics at a research level.

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.

As large language models transition from bounded generative engines to agents with expansive execution privileges, AI going out of control precipitates a fundamental crisis in artificial intelligence security. Existing defense architectures heavily rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators, mechanisms that fail to provide deterministic security lower bounds when facing complex semantic symbol decoupling attacks. To overcome this empirical semantic guardrail dilemma, this paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning. Based on this paradigm, we further introduce an executable Proof-Constrained Action (ePCA) framework with a neural symbolic isolation architecture. This framework abandons semantic trust in natural language, forcing agents to losslessly formalize their intentions into first-order logical mathematical constraints before performing physical operations. Empirical evaluations of macroscopic and microscopic two-dimensional dynamic adversarial systems demonstrate that our formal verification mechanism achieves zero attack success rate and zero false positive rate across the evaluated scenarios, with extremely low computational latency. This research provides a conditional formal foundation under explicit system assumptions and an engineering paradigm for constructing the underlying defense foundation for future intelligent systems.

Self-evolving scientific agents capable of conquering the hard tail of formal mathematics require Compositional Learning Behaviours (CLBs) -- the capacity to ground and recombine novel symbolic structures in context, beyond mere recombination of prelearned atoms. We propose S2B-LM, an adaptation of the CLB-evaluating Symbolic Behaviour Benchmark that removes numerical processing as a confound and adds chain-of-thought scaffolding to elicit rather than merely probe latent CLB competency. Cross-evaluating ten Lean~4 theorem provers on CLB competency in S2B-LM and miniF2F whole-proof performance, we find correlational and causal evidence of our claim: First, a necessary-condition analysis via quadrant test yields $p=0.004$, with model scale being ruled out as a confound. Second, extracting a CLB-encoding activation direction from DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B using S2B-LM traces via Contrastive Activation Addition and applying it during miniF2F whole-proof generation on the AIME subset, CLB suppression collapses solve rate from $32.3\%$ to $2.9\%$, without loss of coherence, while suppressing a random activation direction of equal magnitude leaves it at $31.9\%$. Together, these results show that CLB competency is necessary but not sufficient for the hard tail of formal mathematical verification.

Signal Temporal Logic (STL), has recently seen extensive development, owing to its rich expressivenes for autonomous planning and control. Nevertheless, existing verification and control synthesis methods are limited with respect to the complexity and degree of nesting of the formulae. In this work, we propose a novel approach to STL based on an operator acting on reachability value functions. This constitutes a new theoretical framework for handling complex multi-nested formulae while at the same time providing tools for on-line control synthesis. In contrast to focusing on the design of STL-based reachability (or control barrier) functions, we develop operator-based nesting rules directly. Our method's expressiveness is demonstrated both theoretically, where necessary and sufficient conditions for STL formula satisfaction are extracted, as well as in simulations with complex fragments.

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 [email protected].

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.

AI coding agents are increasingly used to write real-world software, but ensuring that their outputs are correct remains a fundamental challenge. Formal verification offers a promising path: an agent generates code together with a machine-checked proof, guaranteeing that the code satisfies a formal specification. However, there is no guarantee that the formal spec itself matches the user's intent. In this work, we study specification autoformalization: whether LLM agents can translate informal programming problems into faithful formal specifications. We introduce Verus-SpecBench, a benchmark of 581 spec-writing tasks derived from Codeforces problems targeting Verus, a verifier for Rust, and Verus-SpecGym, an agentic environment in which models interact with Verus, bash, & the filesystem to develop these specs. The central challenge is evaluation: expert-written reference specs are expensive to write, & LLM judges can miss subtle mistakes. We address this by (a) extending Verus's exec_spec mechanism so that generated specs can be executed as Rust code, & (b) testing them against official Codeforces tests & adversarial cases extracted from Codeforces "hacks", which are edge cases written by competitors to break incorrect solutions. On Verus-SpecBench, the strongest model, Gemini 3.1 Pro, solves 77.8% of tasks, other frontier models solve 51.1--57.8% & OSS models reach only 21.5--25.5%. Our analysis of failure modes shows that model-generated specs can omit important input assumptions, accept incorrect outputs, & reject valid ones. We also find that LLM-as-a-judge evaluation misses 26% of the failures our evaluator catches. Overall, our results suggest that spec autoformalization is within reach for frontier agents but remains brittle even on problems where they can already generate correct code. The code, data, & logs can be found at https://github.com/formal-verif-is-cool/verus-spec-gym

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.

Tools like Tamarin and ProVerif have achieved notable success in analyzing and verifying complex real-world protocols such as EMV, 5G, and WPA2, even detecting zero-day exploits. Despite these successes, verifying such protocols remains a time-consuming, challenging task, often requiring significant human effort and expertise. In this paper, we present a reinforcement learning (RL) framework inspired by AlphaZero and AlphaProof that implements a new style of proof search for Tamarin. We have developed a stateless API for Tamarin that acts as a classical RL environment. We guide a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) by a neural heuristic that learns from completed subproofs. We evaluate our framework on 16 case studies, ranging from classical protocol models to challenging state-of-the-art protocol models from recent publications. Our method finds more proofs automatically than Tamarin's standard search and produces shorter proofs than both the standard and human-engineered heuristics. Our pipeline is applicable out of the box to assist Tamarin users in active research, reducing the human effort required. Moreover, our standardized interface provides a programmatic way for users to interact with Tamarin. Finally, our work demonstrates the promising potential of adapting RL-based methods to the Tamarin domain.

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.

We present Lean-GAP (Lean-Graduate Agebra Problems), 430 formalized graduate-level algebra problems from the textbook Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote. We develop a scalable pipeline consisting of PDF-to-LaTeX preprocessing, autoformalization into Lean 4, and verification of informal-formal correspondence. While the preprocessing and autoformalization stages can be largely automated, we find that verification remains the most subtle and labor-intensive component, requiring careful human oversight. Our contributions include (i) the construction of a structured dataset of formalized exercises, (ii) a systematic methodology for formalizing textbook mathematics, and (iii) an analysis of recurring challenges in the formalization process. We also compare the performance of different autoformalization models and highlight key bottlenecks in translating informal statements into formal language.

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.

While conventional (k=1) discrete-time barrier certificate conditions impose strict safety constraints by requiring the function to be non-increasing at every step, k-inductive barrier certificates relax this by allowing a temporary increase -- up to k-1 times, each within a threshold $ε$ -- while maintaining overall safety, and improving flexibility. This paper leverages neural networks and constructs k-inductive neural barrier certificates (k-NBCs) for (partially) unknown nonlinear systems. While neural networks offer scalability in the design process, they lack formal guarantees, requiring additional approaches such as counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS) with satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) for verification. However, the CEGIS-SMT framework requires knowledge of system dynamics, which is unavailable in practical settings. To address this, we leverage the generalization of the Willems et al.'s fundamental lemma, using a single state trajectory, to construct a data-driven representation of (partially) unknown models for SMT verification without sacrificing accuracy. Additionally, CEGIS-SMT further removes the constraint of restricting barrier certificates to specific function classes, such as sum-of-squares, enabling greater flexibility in their design. We validate our approach on three nonlinear case studies with (partially) unknown dynamics.

We examine one particular dimension of AI governance: how to monitor and audit AI-enabled products and services throughout the AI development lifecycle, from pre-deployment testing to post-deployment auditing. Combining principles from formal methods with SoTA machine learning, we propose techniques that enable AI-enabled product and service developers, as well as third party AI developers and evaluators, to perform offline auditing and online (runtime) monitoring of product-specific (temporally extended) behavioral constraints such as safety constraints, norms, rules and regulations with respect to black-box advanced AI systems, notably LLMs. We further provide practical techniques for predictive monitoring, such as sampling-based methods, and we introduce intervening monitors that act at runtime to preempt and potentially mitigate predicted violations. Experimental results show that by exploiting the formal syntax and semantics of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), our proposed auditing and monitoring techniques are superior to LLM baseline methods in detecting violations of temporally extended behavioral constraints; with our approach, even small-model labelers match or exceed frontier LLM judges. Our predictive and intervening monitors significantly reduce the violation rates of LLM-based agents while largely preserving task performance. We further show through controlled experiments that LLMs' temporal reasoning shows a pronounced degradation in accuracy with increasing event distance, number of constraints, and number of propositions.

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.

A fundamental limitation of Text-to-Code is that no guarantee can be obtained about the correctness of the generated code. Therefore, to ensure its correctness, the generated code still has to be reviewed, tested, and maintained by developers. However, parsing through LLM-generated code can be tedious and time-consuming, potentially negating the productivity gains promised by AI-coding tools. To address this challenge, we present Viverra, a system that automatically produces formally verified annotations alongside generated code to aid user's understanding of the generated program. Given a natural-language task description, Viverra prompts an LLM to synthesize a C program together with candidate assertions expressing safety and correctness properties. It then verifies those assertions in a compositional and best-effort manner via a portfolio of bounded model checkers. Evaluation on 18 diverse programming tasks suggests that Viverra can efficiently generate code with verified assertions, and that these assertions improve users' performance on code-comprehension tasks in a user study with more than 400 participants.

GraphFlow is a visual workflow system designed to improve the reliability of agentic AI automation in multi-step, mission-critical processes. In these workflows, small errors compound rapidly: under an idealized model of independent steps, a ten-step process with 90% per-step reliability completes successfully only 35% of the time. Existing workflow platforms provide durable execution and observability but offer few semantic correctness guarantees, while agentic systems plan at inference time, making behavior sensitive to prompt variation and difficult to audit. GraphFlow is designed to address this gap by treating workflow diagrams as the executable specification, a single artifact defining data scope, execution semantics, and monitoring. At compile time, a restricted class of diagrams is specified to produce reusable automations whose contracts (preconditions, postconditions, and composition obligations) are intended to be proof-checked before admission to a shared library. At runtime, a durable engine records outcomes in an append-only event log and can enforce contracts at system boundaries, supporting replay, retries, and audit. Swimlanes make trust boundaries explicit, separating verified logic from external systems, human judgment, and AI decisions. A year-long pilot across three clinical sites executed 8,728 cohort-enrolled workflow runs with a 97.08% completion rate under an early prototype without the verified-core subsystem; observed failures were localized primarily to external integrations. The formal semantics and proof-checked admission model described here are specified and under active development. Evaluation of the verified core is reserved for future work.

Dynamic systems in AI are often complex and heterogeneous, so that an internal specification is not accessible and verification techniques such as model checking are not applicable. Monitoring is in such cases an attractive alternative, as it evaluates desirable properties along traces generated by an unknown dynamic system. In this work, we consider anticipatory monitoring of linear-time properties enriched with an arbitrary SMT theory over finite traces (LTLfMT). Anticipatory monitoring in this setting is highly challenging, as the monitoring state depends on both the trace prefix seen so far and all its possible finite continuations. Under reasonable assumptions on the background theory, we present and formally prove the correctness of a novel foundational framework for monitoring properties in an expressive fragment of LTLfMT. The framework combines automata-theoretic methods to handle the temporal aspects of the logic, with automated reasoning techniques to address the first-order dimension. Moreover, we identify for the first time decidable fragments of this monitoring problem that are practically relevant as they combine linear arithmetic with uninterpreted functions, which covers e.g. data-aware business processes and dynamic systems operating over a read-only database. Feasibility is witnessed by a prototype implementation and preliminary evaluation.

Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) are the standard framework for decision-making under uncertainty. While sampling-based methods scale well, they lack formal correctness guarantees, making them unsuitable for safety-critical applications. Conversely, formal synthesis techniques provide correctness-by-construction but often struggle with scalability, as general POMDP synthesis is undecidable. To bridge this gap, we propose a synthesis framework that integrates sampling, automata learning, and model-checking. Inspired by Angluin's $L^*$ algorithm, our approach utilizes sampling as a membership oracle and model-checking as an equivalence oracle. This enables the synthesis of finite-state controllers with formal guarantees, provided the sampling-induced policy is regular. We establish a relative completeness result for this framework. Experimental results from our prototypical implementation demonstrate that this method successfully solves threshold-safety problems that remain challenging for existing formal synthesis tools. We believe our algorithm serves as a valuable component in a portfolio approach to tackling the inherent difficulty of POMDP synthesis problems.

Formal verification of transformers has become increasingly important due to their widespread deployment in safety-critical applications. Compared to classic neural networks, the inferences of transformers involve highly complex computations, such as dot products in self-attention layers, rendering their verification extremely difficult. Existing approaches explored over-approximation methods by constructing convex constraints to bound the output ranges of transformers, which can achieve high efficiency. However, they may sacrifice verification precision, and consequently introduce significant approximation error that leads to frequent occurrences of false alarms. In this paper, we propose a transformer verification approach that can achieve improved precision. At the core of our approach is a novel usage of ReLU, by which we represent a precise but non-linear bound for dot products such that we can further exploit the rich body of literature for convex relaxation of ReLU to derive precise bounds. We extend two classic approaches to the context of transformers, a rule-based one and an optimization-based one, resulting in two new frameworks for efficient and precise verification. We evaluate our approaches on different model architectures and robustness properties derived from two datasets about sentiment analysis, and compare with the state-of-the-art baseline approach. Compared to the baseline, our approach can achieve significant precision improvement for most of the verification tasks with acceptable compromise of efficiency, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.

Decision tree ensembles (DTE) are a popular model for a wide range of AI classification tasks, used in multiple safety critical domains, and hence verifying properties on these models has been an active topic of study over the last decade. One such verification question is the problem of sensitivity, which asks, given a DTE, whether a small change in subset of features can lead to misclassification of the input. In this work, our focus is to build a quantitative notion of sensitivity, tailored to DTEs, by discretizing the input space of the model and enumerating the regions which are susceptible to sensitivity. We propose a novel algorithmic technique that can perform this computation efficiently, within a certified error and confidence bound. Our approach is based on encoding the problem as an algebraic decision diagram (ADD), and further splitting it into subproblems that can be solved efficiently and make the computation compositional and scalable. We evaluate the performance of our technique over benchmarks of varying size in terms of number of trees and depth, comparing it against the performance of model counters over the same problem encoding. Experimental results show that our tool XCount achieves significant speedup over other approaches and can scale well with the increasing sizes of the ensembles.

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.

LLM-based generation of SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) is often reported as nearing saturation, with the strongest specialized model reaching ${\sim}76\%$ accuracy on NL2SVA-Human. We show that this aggregate hides a temporal gap: models that appear strong overall still collapse to a few implication templates on bounded-delay and liveness specifications. The core issue is that the dominant recipe, supervised fine-tuning on NL/SVA pairs, optimizes token-level mimicry rather than the property equivalence that defines SVA correctness. We introduce Reward-Weighted On-Policy Distillation (RWOPD), an on-policy distillation method that samples student rollouts, scores them with an open SymbiYosys+Z3 Property-Equivalence Checker (PEC), and applies a verifier-reward-weighted forward-KL gradient from a frozen 14B teacher on verifier-passable rollouts. This keeps the supervision dense at every response token while grounding both selection and loss weight in property-equivalent behavior. RWOPD distills CodeV-SVA-14B into a Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct student that sets a new state of the art on NL2SVA-Human and NL2SVA-Machine across pass@1, pass@5, and pass@10, surpassing both specialized prior SOTA models and 671B general-purpose baselines.

Strategy synthesis typically follows an all-or-nothing paradigm, returning unrealisable whenever a specification cannot be guaranteed in an uncertain environment. In this paper, we introduce optimal LTLf synthesis, where the goal is to realise as many objectives as possible from a given specification consisting of multiple objectives, especially for the case that they are not all jointly realisable. We first consider max-guarantee synthesis, which commits to a maximal set of objectives that we can a priori guarantee to realise. We then introduce max-observation synthesis, which maximises a posteriori realised objectives that may be incomparable on different executions. Finally, we present incremental max-observation synthesis, which further improves strategies by exploiting opportunities for stronger guarantees when they arise during an execution. Experimental results show that different variations of optimal synthesis scale broadly equally well, solving a large fraction of the benchmark instances within the given timeout, demonstrating the practical feasibility of the approach.

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