Formal Verification

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.

Large language models can generate useful code from natural language, but their outputs come without correctness guarantees. Verifiable code generation offers a path beyond testing by requiring models to produce not only executable code, but also formal specifications and machine-checkable proofs. Progress in this direction, however, is difficult to measure: existing benchmarks are often small, focus on only one part of the pipeline, lack ground-truth proofs or rigorous specification validation, or target verification settings far from mainstream software development. We present VeriContest, a benchmark of 946 competitive-programming problems from LeetCode and Codeforces for verifiable code generation in Rust with Verus. Each problem pairs a natural language description with expert-validated formal specifications, judge-accepted Rust code, Verus-checked proofs, and positive and negative test suites. VeriContest is constructed through a three-phase pipeline that scales from manually verified seed problems to semi-automated expansion with human-in-the-loop review. To further strengthen benchmark quality, we use testing as an additional quality-assurance layer for validating postcondition completeness. VeriContest supports isolated and compositional evaluation of specification generation, code generation, proof generation, and end-to-end verified program synthesis. Evaluating ten state-of-the-art models reveals a sharp gap between coding ability and verifiable code generation: the strongest model reaches 92.18% on natural-language-to-code generation, but only 48.31% on specification generation, 13.95% on proof generation, and 5.29% end-to-end. These results identify proof and specification generation as the central bottlenecks for models and establish VeriContest as a rigorous platform for measuring and training future systems that generate code with machine-checkable correctness.

In structured decision-making workflows such as form filling, compliance checking, and maintenance reporting, LLM outputs must be locally correct, globally consistent, and auditable against task-specific rules. Existing refinement methods often rely on heuristic debate, self-play, or LLM-generated supervision, creating a second-order assurance problem. We propose DPA-GRPO (Dual Paired-Action Group-Relative Policy Optimization), a paired-action training method for a two-player generator--verifier game with structured verifier interventions. The generator proposes outputs and may revise them when challenged; the verifier either remains silent or raises a safety assurance case (SAC) containing a claim, argument, and evidence. These SAC/no-SAC and KEEP/REVISE decisions induce paired counterfactual action groups, which DPA-GRPO uses for role-specific KL-regularized GRPO updates. We analyze the unregularized game and show that positive probability on strictly lower-reward intervention or revision actions creates a profitable unilateral deviation. Under standard stochastic-approximation assumptions, DPA-GRPO tracks the corresponding game ODE, whose isolated asymptotically stable limit points are stationary and candidate local equilibria under role-wise local optimality. Experiments on TaxCalcBench TY24 show that DPA-GRPO improves structured decision accuracy over zero-shot generation and generator-only RL baselines across Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B. Training increases correct silent acceptance, reduces missed errors, and improves calibrated revision behavior, indicating gains for both generator and verifier.

We present TraceFix, a verification-first pipeline for Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent coordination. An agent synthesizes a protocol topology as a structured intermediate representation (IR) from a task description, generates PlusCal coordination logic, and iteratively repairs the protocol using counterexamples from the TLA+ model checker (TLC) until verification succeeds. Verified process bodies are compiled into per-agent system prompts and executed under a runtime monitor that rejects out-of-topology coordination operations. On 48 tasks spanning 16 scenario families, all tasks reach full TLC verification; 62.5% pass on the first attempt and none requires more than four repair iterations. State spaces span six orders of magnitude yet verification completes in under 60 s for every task. A 3,456-run runtime comparison shows that topology-monitored execution achieves the highest task completion (89.4% average, 81.5% full) and that runtimes using the verified protocol degrade at roughly half the rate of prompt-only and chat-only baselines when model capability is reduced. A paired ablation under a fixed runtime shows that TLC-verified protocols cut deadlock/livelock (DL/LL) from 31.1% to 14.1%, with the largest separation under fault injection.

LLMs can generate hardware descriptions from natural language specifications, but the resulting Verilog often contains width mismatches, combinational loops, and incomplete case logic that pass syntax checks yet fail in synthesis or silicon. We present CktFormalizer, a framework that redirects LLM-driven hardware generation through a dependently-typed HDL embedded in Lean 4. Lean serves three roles: (i) type checker:dependent types encode bit-width constraints, case coverage, and acyclicity, turning hardware defects into compile-time errors that guide iterative repair; (ii) correctness firewall:compiled designs are structurally free of defects that cause silent backend failures (the baseline loses 20% of correct designs during synthesis and routing; CktFormalizer preserves all of them); (iii) proof assistant:the agent constructs machine-checked equivalence proofs over arbitrary input sequences and parameterized widths, beyond the reach of bounded SMT-based checking. On VerilogEval (156 problems), RTLLM (50 problems), and ResBench (56 problems), CktFormalizer achieves simulation pass rates competitive with direct Verilog generation while delivering substantially higher backend realizability: 95--100% of compiled designs complete the full synthesis, place-and-route, DRC, and LVS flow. A closed-loop PPA optimization stage yields up to 35% area reduction and 30% power reduction through validated architecture exploration, with automated theorem proof ensuring that each optimized variant remains functionally equivalent to its formal specification.

Formal verification of neural control barrier functions (NCBFs) remains challenging, especially for neural networks with nonlinear activations like $\tanh$. Existing CROWN-based methods rely on conservative linear relaxations for Jacobian bounds, limiting scalability. We propose LightCROWN, which computes tighter Jacobian bounds by exploiting the analytical properties of activation functions. Experiments on nonlinear control systems including the inverted pendulum, Dubins car, and planar quadrotor demonstrate that LightCROWN improves verification success rates up to 100%, while enhancing speed and scalability. Our approach provides a generalizable improvement for CROWN-based frameworks, enabling more efficient verification of complex NCBFs. The code can be found at github.com/Autonomous-Systems-and-Control-Lab/verify-neural-CBF.

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.

LLM-based game generation promises to turn natural-language specifications into executable games, but progress is limited by the lack of reliable automated verification. Unlike conventional code generation, game correctness is defined over long-horizon interaction: a game may appear correct while violating core mechanics such as state updates, interaction rules, and phase transitions. Existing Agent-as-a-Verifier approaches collapse verification into open-ended gameplay, making verdicts reachability-bound, time-consuming, coverage-limited, and sensitive to the agent's gameplay ability. We present GameGen-Verifier, an automated verification paradigm for LLM-generated games that decomposes a specification into verifiable keypoints and grounds them into independent verification units. Each unit patches the game runtime into a concrete target state, executes a bounded interaction, and judges the outcome against the keypoint assertion. We implement GGV-Harness, a scalable agentic harness providing concurrency management, runtime isolation, and fault recovery. On VeriGame, our dataset of 100 games across seven genres, GameGen-Verifier achieves up to 92.2% accuracy against human judgments versus 58.8% for the coverage-enforced Agent-as-a-Verifier baseline, while reducing wall-clock time by up to 16.6x.

The ecosystem of Lean and Mathlib has become the de facto standard for large language model (LLM) assisted formal reasoning with remarkable successes in recent years. Those successes, however, only consume Mathlib as an essential dependency but do not directly contribute to it. In the meantime, the growth of Mathlib has recently been bottlenecked by the review process, which requires human reviewers to judge whether proposed pull requests (PRs) follow the Mathlib's conventions and are worth integrating as part of a shared mathematical infrastructure. This leads to our central question: can LLMs help review Mathlib PRs? To this end, we introduce MathlibPR, a benchmark built from real Mathlib4 PR histories. We further propose a staged evaluation protocol and use it to evaluate both LLM models (e.g., DeepSeek, Qwen, Goedel, and Kimina) and LLM agents (e.g., Codex and Claude Code). Surprisingly, both LLM models and LLM agents struggle to distinguish merge-ready PRs from build-passing PRs that were revised or never merged. By turning Mathlib PR histories into a supervised signal, MathlibPR provides a step toward reviewer assistants and reward models that could help evaluate PRs and steer LLMs toward producing merge-ready Mathlib contributions.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly deployed not in isolation, but inside social environments populated by other agents and humans, such as in social media platforms, multi-agent LLM pipelines or autonomous robotics fleets. In these settings, system behavior emerges not from individual agents alone, but from the multi-agent interactions over time. Emergent dynamics of individuals in a social group have been long studied by social scientists in human contexts. \textbf{This position paper argues that agentic AI systems must be modeled with social theory as a structural prior, and formalizes a Multi-Agent Social Systems (MASS) framework for how agents interact and influence to generate system-level outcomes.} We represent MASS as a class of dynamical system of information generation, local influence and interaction structure, formulated by four structural priors anchored in social theory: strategic heterogeneity, networked-constrained dependence, co-evolution and distributional instability. We demonstrate the importance of each structural prior through formal propositions, and articulate a research agenda for how MASS should be modeled, evaluated and governed.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities for solving scientific and mathematical problems, yet they struggle to produce valid, challenging, and novel problems - an essential component for advancing LLM training and enabling autonomous scientific research. Existing problem generation approaches either depend on expensive human expert involvement or adopt naive self-play paradigms, which frequently yield invalid problems due to reward hacking. This work introduces VHG, a verifier-enhanced hard problem generation framework built upon three-party self-play. By integrating an independent verifier into the conventional setter-solver duality, our design constrains the setter's reward to be jointly determined by problem validity (evaluated by the verifier) and difficulty (assessed by the solver). We instantiate two verifier variants: a Hard symbolic verifier and a Soft LLM-based verifier, with evaluations conducted on indefinite integral tasks and general mathematical reasoning tasks. Experimental results show that VHG substantially outperforms all baseline methods by a clear margin.

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.

Autonomous AI agents already transact at production scale -- 69,000 bots, 165 million transactions, $50 million in volume on a single marketplace -- and any party can verify a signed credential without a central service. In an open agent world that covers most of what trust requires: there are no universal borders, and each party chooses for itself whom to deal with. Borders appear only where a closed space draws one -- a marketplace, a platform, or a consortium sets house rules. Whoever draws the border holds the authority to apply it, and may apply it as they choose, behind closed doors. This paper addresses the gap that opens there: when you rely on someone else's border, how do you check that they applied their own published rules -- taking no one's word for it, and handing the check to no new trusted party? Our answer is the Combined Evidence Protocol (CEP): a five-condition predicate any party recomputes from anchored data, turning "did the boundary-owner follow its own admission rules" into a fact anyone verifies rather than a claim anyone believes. The move that secures optimistic rollups secures this -- correctness rests on recomputation, so the measurement belongs to everyone and the oracle problem dissolves. Its load-bearing setting is a consortium of co-equal, mutually distrusting peers under a shared charter, each able to verify, independently, that the rules they jointly agreed are the rules being applied. CEP belongs to the family of trustless systems -- optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups, verifiable ML, self-sovereign-identity predicates. The infrastructure beneath it is live: a W3C VC + DID trust layer running since March 2026, anchored on Base L2, continuing arXiv:2605.06738 and standing on its own.

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.

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a core paradigm for enhancing factual grounding and multi-hop reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs). Traditional text-based RAG often retrieves logically irrelevant pseudo-evidence, while graph-based RAG is frequently hindered by search-time pruning, which may discard potentially valid reasoning paths. Existing hybrid approaches primarily adopt simple evidence concatenation or unidirectional enhancement, which fails to address the fundamental "Information Island" problem caused by asymmetric reasoning flows between unstructured text and structured graphs. We propose \textbf{TGS-RAG}, a unified framework for \textbf{T}ext-\textbf{G}raph \textbf{S}ynergistic enhancement. TGS-RAG introduces a bidirectional mechanism: (i) a \textbf{Graph-to-Text} channel that employs a Global Voting strategy from visited graph nodes to re-rank and refine textual evidence, filtering out semantic noise; and (ii) a \textbf{Text-to-Graph} channel that utilizes the \textbf{Memory-based Orphan Entity Bridging} algorithm. This algorithm utilizes textual cues to proactively resurrect valid but previously pruned reasoning paths from the search history without additional database overhead. Experimental results on multiple multi-hop reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that TGS-RAG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a superior balance between retrieval precision and computational efficiency.

Given two GNNs that output node embeddings, how can we determine if they were trained independently? An adversary could have trained one GNN specifically to mimic the other GNN's embeddings. To obscure this relationship between the GNNs, the adversarial GNN might then transform its output embeddings. The two GNNs could have different architectures, weights, and embedding dimensions, and the adversary can transform the embeddings. Despite these stringent conditions, our algorithm (named CopyCop) can identify such copycat GNNs, unlike existing watermarking and fingerprinting methods. We also provide theoretical guarantees for CopyCop. Finally, experiments on 14 datasets and 5 GNN architectures demonstrate that CopyCop is accurate and robust against a broad class of adversarial attacks and transformations. Code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CopyCop-Graph-Ownership-Verification-8143/README.md

Long-horizon LLM agents depend on intermediate information-gathering turns, yet training feedback is usually observed only at the final answer, because process-level rewards require high-quality human annotation. Existing turn-level shaping methods reward turns that increase the likelihood of a gold answer, but they require answer supervision or stable task-specific verifiers. Conversely, label-free RL methods extract self-signals from output distributions, but mainly at the answer or trajectory level and therefore cannot assign credit to intermediate turns. We propose Self-Induced Outcome Potential (SIOP), which treats semantic clusters of final answers as latent future outcome states for potential-based turn-level credit assignment. For each query, SIOP samples multiple rollouts, clusters final answers into semantic outcome modes, and builds a reliability-aware target distribution over these states. It then rewards turns for increasing posterior support for reliable future states using a tractable cluster-level approximation. The objective generalizes information-potential shaping from gold-answer supervision to settings without task-specific gold verifiers while avoiding the broadcasted rollout-level advantages used by standard GRPO. We formalize the framework, characterize its supervised gold-answer limit, and show that SIOP improves average performance over verifier-free outcome-level baselines on seven search-augmented agentic reasoning benchmarks while approaching a gold-supervised outcome baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/dl-m9/SIOP.git.

Automating formal proofs of combinatorial identities is challenging for LLM-based provers, as long-horizon proof planning is required and unconstrained search quickly explodes. Symbolic methods such as the Wilf-Zeilberger (WZ) method can achieve a mechanized proof of combinatorial identities by constructing special auxiliary functions and demonstrating that they satisfy specific recurrence relations. We propose WZ-LLM, a neuro-symbolic framework that turns WZ proof plans into executable proof sketches in Lean 4 and uses an LLM-based prover to discharge the resulting machine-checkable subgoals. We also train a dedicated WZ-Prover via a Lean-kernel-verified bootstrapping loop with expert-verified iteration, followed by DAPO-based refinement. Experiments show that WZ-LLM achieves a 34% proof success rate on LCI-Test (100 classic combinatorial identities), outperforming strong baselines such as DeepSeek-V3 and Goedel-Prover-V2, and delivering consistent gains on CombiBench and PutnamBench-Comb. These results indicate that our framework provides two complementary strengths: improved direct proving for identities beyond the scope of WZ, and substantially higher end-to-end success when WZ sketches guide a specialized prover.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

We investigate the scaling properties of implicit deductive reasoning over Horn clauses in depth-bounded Transformers. By systematically decorrelating provability from spurious features and enforcing algorithmic alignment, we find that in sufficiently deep models with a bidirectional prefix mask, implicit reasoning approaches explicit CoT performance across graph topologies and problem widths, though CoT remains necessary for depth extrapolation.

Syndrome-based neural decoding (SBND) has emerged as a promising deep learning approach for soft-decision decoding of high-rate, short-length codes. However, this approach still has substantial room for improvement. In this paper, we show how to leverage code automorphisms to enhance the ability of existing SBND models to learn and generalize through data augmentation during training and inference. As a result, for the short high-rate codes considered, we obtain models that closely approach MLD performance using small datasets and proper training. Our findings also suggest that many prior results for SBND models in the literature underestimate their true correction capability due to undertraining. Code to reproduce all results is available at: https://github.com/lebidan/sbnd.

Understanding whether deep neural networks are effectively optimized remains challenging, as training occurs in highly nonconvex landscapes and standard metrics provide limited visibility into layer-wise learning quality. This challenge is particularly acute for transformer-based language models, where training is expensive, models are often reused in frozen form, and poorly optimized layers can silently degrade performance. We propose a layer-wise peeling framework for monitoring training dynamics, in which each transformer layer is locally optimized against intermediate representations of the trained model. By constructing lightweight, layer-specific reference solutions and projecting layers onto multiple intermediate outputs via different permutations, we obtain achievable baselines that enable fine-grained diagnosis of under-optimized layers. Experiments on decoder-only transformer models show that these layer-wise reference bounds can match or even surpass the trained model at various stages of training, exposing inefficiencies that remain hidden in aggregate loss curves. We further demonstrate that this analysis remains effective under binarization and quantized settings, where training dynamics are particularly fragile. Across all numerical results, the proposed bounds consistently separate apparent convergence from effective optimality, highlighting optimization opportunities that are invisible when relying on training loss alone.

This position paper argues that reliable AI requires infrastructure for human validation of implicit knowledge. AI learns from both explicit knowledge (papers, documentation, structured databases) and implicit knowledge (reasoning patterns, debugging processes, intermediate steps). Implicit knowledge remains unexternalized because documentation cost exceeds perceived value -- yet AI learns from it indiscriminately, acquiring both beneficial patterns and harmful biases. Current reliability methods can only verify explicit knowledge against sources, creating a fundamental gap: the most valuable AI capabilities (reasoning, judgment, intuition) are precisely those we cannot verify. We propose Knowledge Objects (KOs) -- structured artifacts that externalize implicit knowledge into forms humans can inspect, verify, and endorse. KOs transform verification economics: what was previously too costly to verify becomes feasible, enabling accumulated human validation to improve reliability over time.

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.

We present a certified purity architecture that converts governance enforcement in cognitive workflow systems from a runtime convention into a structural capability boundary. A prior three-layer governance architecture proves governance completeness, provenance completeness, and the impossibility of ungoverned effects, conditional on the pure module constraint: that step executors cannot perform effects. That constraint was enforced by module import graph analysis, which is insufficient against adversarial bypass on the BEAM virtual machine. This paper closes the gap through four mechanisms: (1) a restricted WebAssembly compilation target where effect-producing instructions are structurally absent; (2) purity certificates, cryptographically signed proofs binding executor binaries to their import classifications; (3) a runtime verification gate that rejects uncertified executors before they enter the governance pipeline; and (4) portable governance credentials via remote attestation for cross-organizational verification. We prove four theorems: structural purity by construction, bypass elimination for all five BEAM bypass classes, certificate integrity, and gate completeness. The guarantee holds relative to an explicit Trusted Computing Base. Evaluation on four implemented executors shows verification latency of 39--42 us, full plan cycle under 400 us, runtime overhead under 0.4% of a 100 ms HTTP request, and zero determinism divergences across repeated invocations.

We present a machine-checked formalization of structurally governed AI workflow architectures and prove that effect-level governance can be imposed without reducing internal computational expressivity. Using Interaction Trees in Rocq 8.19, we define a governance operator G that mediates all effectful directives, including memory access, external calls, and oracle (LLM) queries. Our development compiles with 0 admitted lemmas and consists of 36 modules, ~12,000 lines of Rocq, and 454 theorems. We establishseven properties: (P1) governed Turing completeness, (P2) governed oracle expressivity, (P3) a decidability boundary in which governance predicates are total and closed under Boolean composition while semantic program properties remain non-trivial and undecidable by governance, (P4) goal preservation for permitted executions, (P5) expressive minimality of primitive capabilities (compute, memory, reasoning, external call, observability), (P6) subsumption asymmetry showing structural governance strictly subsumes content-level filtering, and (P7) semantic transparency: on all executions where governance permits, the governed interpretation is observationally equivalent (modulo governance-only events) to the ungoverned interpretation. Together, these results show that governance and computational expressivity are orthogonal dimensions: governance constrains the effect boundary of programs while remaining semantically transparent to internal computation.

While Large Language Models have achieved notable success on formal mathematics benchmarks such as MiniF2F, it remains unclear whether these results stem from genuine logical reasoning or semantic pattern matching against pre-training data. This paper identifies Architectural Reasoning: the ability to synthesize formal proofs using exclusively local axioms and definitions within an alien math domain, as the necessary ability for future automated theorem discovery AI. We use the Obfuscated Natural Number Game, a benchmark to evaluate Architectural Reasoning. By renaming identifiers in the Natural Number Game in Lean 4, we created a zero-knowledge, closed environment. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, finding a universal latency tax where obfuscation increases inference time. The results also reveal a divergence in robustness: while general models (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4o) suffer performance degradation, reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, GPT-5, DeepSeek-Prover-V2) maintain the same accuracy despite the absence of semantic cues. These findings provide a quantitative metric for assessing the true capacity for mathematical reasoning.

Agent skills - structured packages of instructions, scripts, and references that augment a large language model (LLM) without modifying the model itself - have moved from convenience to first-class deployment artifact. The runtime that loads them inherits the same problem package managers and operating systems have always faced: a piece of content claims a behavior; the runtime must decide whether to believe it. We argue this paper's central thesis up front: a skill is untrusted code until it is verified, and the runtime that loads it must enforce that default rather than infer trust from a signature, a clearance, or a registry of origin. Without skill verification, a human-in-the-loop (HITL) gate must fire on every irreversible call - which is operationally untenable and degrades into rubber-stamping at any non-trivial scale. With skill verification treated as a separate, gated process, HITL fires only for what is unverified, and the system becomes sustainable. We give a trust schema that includes an explicit verification level on every skill manifest; a capability gate whose HITL policy is a function of that verification level; a biconditional correctness criterion that any candidate verification procedure must satisfy on an adversarial-ensemble exercise; and a portable runtime profile with ten normative guidelines abstracted from a working open-source reference implementation. The contribution is harness- and model-agnostic; nothing here requires retraining, fine-tuning, or proprietary infrastructure.

Tree-based speculative decoding accelerates autoregressive generation by verifying multiple draft candidates in parallel, but this advantage weakens for sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. As the draft tree grows, different branches activate different experts, expanding the union of activated experts and substantially increasing target-side verification cost. We propose EVICT, a training-free, hyperparameter-free, and lossless adaptive verification method for MoE speculative decoding. EVICT makes every verified token count by truncating the draft tree before target verification and retaining only the cost-effective prefix. It leverages fine-grained drafter signals to estimate candidate benefit, combines them with offline-profiled verification cost, and remains highly compatible with the high-performance graph-based serving framework SGLang. Extensive experiments on diverse MoE backbones and benchmarks show that EVICT achieves up to 2.35x speedup over autoregressive decoding and an average 1.21x speedup over the state-of-the-art baseline EAGLE-3, while significantly reducing unnecessary expert activations during verification.

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of a binary classifier has often been utilized to measure the performance of the classifier. The area beneath this curve is used in particular because of its quoted probabilistic interpretation as being equal to the probability that the classifier will rank a random positive observation above a random negative observation. This paper formalizes this claim, produces a bound on how far away from the truth it is if a hypothesis is not met, and gives a small literature review of the ROC curve.

Rule-based systems remain central in safety-critical domains but often struggle with scalability, brittleness, and goal misspecification. These limitations can lead to reward hacking and failures in formal verification, as AI systems tend to optimize for narrow objectives. In previous research, we developed a neuro-symbolic causal framework that integrates first-order logic abduction trees, structural causal models, and deep reinforcement learning within a MAPE-K loop to provide explainable adaptations under distribution shifts. In this paper, we extend that framework by introducing a meta-level layer designed to mitigate goal misspecification and support scalable rule maintenance. This layer consists of a Goal/Rule Synthesizer and a Rule Verification Engine, which iteratively refine a formal rule theory from high-level natural-language goals and principles provided by human experts. The synthesis pipeline employs large language models (LLMs) to: (1) decompose goals into candidate causes, (2) consolidate semantics to remove redundancies, (3) translate them into candidate first-order rules, and (4) compose necessary and sufficient causal sets. The verification pipeline then performs (1) syntax and schema validation, (2) logical consistency analysis, and (3) safety and invariant checks before integrating verified rules into the knowledge base. We evaluated our approach with a proof-of-concept implementation in two autonomous driving scenarios. Results indicate that, given human-specified goals and principles, the pipeline can successfully derive minimal necessary and sufficient rule sets and formalize them as logical constraints. These findings suggest that the pipeline supports incremental, modular, and traceable rule synthesis grounded in established legal and safety principles.

Decentralized, agentic AI marketplaces are rapidly emerging to support software engineering tasks such as debugging, patch generation, and security auditing, often operating without centralized oversight. However, existing reputation mechanisms fail in this setting for three fundamental reasons: agents can strategically optimize against evaluation procedures; demonstrated competence does not reliably transfer across heterogeneous task contexts; and verification rigor varies widely, from lightweight automated checks to costly expert review. Current approaches to reputation drawing on federated learning, blockchain-based AI platforms, and large language model safety research are unable to address these challenges in combination. We therefore propose \textbf{AgentReputation}, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems. The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution. The framework introduces explicit verification regimes linked to agent reputation metadata, as well as context-conditioned reputation cards that prevent reputation conflation across domains and task types. In addition, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation based on risk and uncertainty. Building on this framework, we outline several future research directions, including the development of verification ontologies, methods for quantifying verification strength, privacy-preserving evidence mechanisms, cold-start reputation bootstrapping, and defenses against adversarial manipulation.

We propose a paradigm shift toward open-ended curriculum self-play: rather than learning to answer on a fixed prompt set, a unified policy learns to question: generating verifiable problems, solving them, and turning verifier feedback into self-improvement without human-annotated solutions. We introduce ANCORA, in which the policy alternates between a Proposer that synthesizes novel specifications and a Solver that produces verified solutions, anchored by three load-bearing mechanisms: a two-level group-relative update coupling Proposer advantages across specifications with Solver advantages across solution attempts; iterative self-distilled SFT projecting the base model onto its valid-output manifold before RL; and a UCB-guided Curriculum DAG whose policy-induced problem set can provably expand under self-composition. Without these stabilizers, sparse verifier feedback drives Proposer collapse even under MLRL-aligned rewards; with them, ANCORA bootstraps a verifiable curriculum from zero human solutions. Instantiated in Verus, ANCORA lifts Dafny2Verus pass@1 from a 26.6% SFT baseline to 81.5% in test-time training (TTT, 0-shot), outperforming PSV self-play by 15.8 points despite PSV's 1-shot inference; in a transfer setting, training from Dafny2Verus seeds yields 36.2% and 17.2% pass@1 on held-out MBPP and HumanEval.

Integrated Circuit (IC) verification consumes nearly 70% of the IC development cycle, and recent research leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically generate testbenches and reduce verification overhead. However, LLMs have difficulty generating testbenches correctly. Unlike high-level programming languages, Hardware Description Languages (HDLs) are extremely rare in LLMs training data, leading LLMs to produce incorrect code. To overcome challenges when using LLMs to generate Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) testbenches and sequences, wepropose HAVEN (Hybrid Automated Verification ENgine) to prevent LLMs from writing HDL directly. For UVM testbench generation, HAVEN utilizes LLM agents to analyze design specifications to produce a structured architectural plan. The HAVEN Template Engine then combines with predefined and protocol-specific templates to generate all UVM components with correct bus-handshake timing. For UVM sequence generation, HAVEN introduces a Protocol-Aware Sequence Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that decomposes sequences into fine-grained step types. A set of predefined DSL patterns first establishes sequences that achieve a high coverage rate without LLM involvement. HAVEN continues to improve the coverage rate by iteratively leveraging LLM agents to analyze coverage gap reports and compose additional targeted DSL sequences. Unlike previous works, HAVEN is the first system that utilizes pre-defined, protocol-specific Jinja2 templates to generate all UVM components and UVM sequences using our proposed Protocol-Aware DSL and rule-based code generator. Our experimental results on 19 open-source IP designs spanning three interface protocols (Direct, Wishbone, AXI4-Lite) show that HAVEN achieves 100% compilation success, 90.6% code coverage, and 87.9% functional coverage on average, and is SOTA among LLM-assisted testbench generation systems.

As large language model (LLM) agents are deployed in high-stakes environments, the question of how safely to delegate subtasks to specialized sub-agents becomes critical. Existing work addresses multi-agent architecture selection at design time or provides broad empirical guidelines, but neither provides a runtime mechanism that dynamically adjusts the safety-efficiency trade-off as task context changes during execution. We propose Safe Bilevel Delegation (SBD), a formal framework for runtime delegation safety in hierarchical multi-agent systems. SBD formulates task delegation as a bilevel optimization problem: an outer meta-weight network phi learns context-dependent safety-efficiency weights lambda(s) in [0,1]; an inner loop optimizes the delegation policy pi subject to a probabilistic safety constraint P(safe) >= 1-delta. The continuous delegation degree alpha in [0, 1] controls how much decision authority is transferred to each sub-agent, interpolating smoothly between full human override (alpha=0) and fully autonomous execution (alpha=1). We establish three theoretical results: (1) Safety Monotonicity--higher outer safety weight produces a weakly safer inner policy; (2) Inner Policy Convergence--projected gradient descent on the inner problem converges linearly under standard smoothness assumptions; (3) an Accountability Propagation bound that distributes responsibility across multi-hop delegation chains with a provable per-agent ceiling. We instantiate SBD in three high-stakes domains--medical AI (MIMIC-III), financial risk control (S and P 500), and educational agent supervision (ASSISTments)--specifying datasets, safety constraint sets, baselines, and evaluation protocols. This manuscript presents the formal framework and theoretical results in full; empirical validation following the protocols described herein is planned and will be reported in a forthcoming revision.

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.

We present five results in the theory of structural governance for cognitive workflow systems. Three are mechanized in Coq 8.19 using the Interaction Trees library with parameterized coinduction; two are proved on paper with explicit reductions. The Coinductive Safety Predicate (gov_safe) is a coinductive property that captures governance safety for infinite program behaviors, indexed by a boolean permission flag that is provably false for ungoverned I/O and true for governed interpretations (mechanized). The Governance Invariance Theorem establishes that governance is uniform across the meta-recursive tower: governance at level n+1 reduces to governance at level n by definitional equality of the type (mechanized). The Sufficiency Theorem proves that four atomic primitives (code, reason, memory, call) are expressively complete for any discrete intelligent system, formalized as compositional closure of a Kleisli category (mechanized). The Alternating Normal Form provides a canonical decomposition of any machine into alternating code and effect layers, with a confluent rewriting system (paper proof). The Necessity Theorem proves via explicit reduction to Rice's theorem that an architecturally opaque component (the reason primitive) is mathematically necessary for problems requiring semantic judgment (paper proof). A sixth contribution connects the abstract model to the deployed runtime: the Verified Interpreter Specification formalizes the BEAM runtime's trust, capability, and hash chain logic in Coq, then tests the running system against this specification using property-based testing with over 70,000 randomly generated directive sequences and zero disagreements. The mechanization comprises approximately 12,000 lines across 36 modules with 454 theorems and zero admitted lemmas.

Reusing verification artefacts requires identifying structural and semantic similarities across programs and their specifications. In this paper, we focus on graph construction as a foundational step toward this goal. We present a pipeline that converts imperative programs and their annotations into typed, attributed graphs. Our experiments cover datasets including C with ACSL, Java with JML, and Dafny programs. The pipeline integrates abstract syntax tree parsing with semantic embeddings derived from models such as SentenceTransformer and CodeBERT. This enables the generation of graph representations that capture both structural relationships and semantic context. Our results show that consistent graph representations can be constructed across different languages and annotation styles. This work provides a practical basis for future steps in semantic enrichment and approximate graph matching for scalable verification artefact reuse.

We introduce DreamProver, an agentic framework that leverages a "wake-sleep" program induction paradigm to discover reusable lemmas for formal theorem proving. Existing approaches either rely on fixed lemma libraries, which limit adaptability, or synthesize highly specific intermediate lemmas tailored to individual theorems, thereby lacking generality. DreamProver addresses this gap through an iterative two-stage process. In the wake stage, DreamProver attempts to prove theorems from a training set using the current lemma library while proposing new candidate lemmas. In the "sleep" stage, it abstracts, refines, and consolidates these candidates to compress and optimize the library. Through this alternating cycle, DreamProver progressively evolves a compact set of high-level, transferable lemmas that can be effectively used to prove unseen theorems in related domains. Experimental results demonstrate that DreamProver substantially improves proof success rates across a diverse set of mathematical benchmarks, while also producing more concise proofs and reducing computational cost.

With recent semantic query processing engines, semantic aggregation has become a primitive operator, enabling the reduction of a relation into a natural language aggregate using an LLM. However, the resulting semantic aggregate may contain claims that are not grounded in the underlying relation. Verifying such claims is challenging: they often involve quantifiers, groupings, and comparisons over relations that far exceed LLM context windows and require a costly combination of semantic and symbolic processing. We present Evergreen, a system that recasts claim verification as a semantic query processing task with tailored optimizations and provenance capture. Evergreen compiles each claim into a declarative semantic verification query that can execute on the same query engine used to produce the aggregate. To reduce cost, Evergreen avoids unnecessary LLM calls through verification-aware optimizations, including early stopping, relevance sorting, and estimation with confidence sequences, as well as general-purpose optimizations for semantic queries, such as operator fusion, similarity filtering, and prompt caching. Each verdict is accompanied by citations that identify a minimal set of tuples justifying the result, with semantics based on semiring provenance for first-order logic. On a benchmark of production-inspired workloads over restaurant review and customer support datasets, Evergreen's optimized configurations occupy the entire cost-quality Pareto frontier. With a strong LLM, Evergreen preserves verification quality at an F1 of 0.94 while reducing cost by 3.1x relative to unoptimized verification; with a substantially weaker LLM, it surpasses the strongest external baseline's F1 (0.87 vs. 0.83) at 7.0x lower cost.

Test-time scaling (TTS) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by investing additional compute at inference time. A central component of TTS is the \emph{verifier}, which selects or scores candidate solutions to guide the search process. While prior work has explored the benefit of verification, a fundamental question remains underexplored: \emph{what is the optimal granularity of verification under a given compute budget?} Coarse-grained outcome reward models (ORMs) and fine-grained process reward models (PRMs) represent two extremes, yet neither alone achieves compute-optimality across all regimes. In this paper, we establish a unified theoretical framework, called \textbf{GRACE} (\underline{G}ranularity-\underline{R}egulated \underline{A}daptive \underline{C}omputational \underline{E}fficiency), that characterizes the optimal verification granularity as an explicit function of problem difficulty, verifier accuracy, and compute budget. We prove that there exists a phase transition: fine-grained verification dominates when either the compute budget is large or the problem is hard, whereas coarse-grained verification is preferred in the low-budget, easy-problem regime. Our theory unifies Best-of-$N$, beam search, and step-level MCTS within a single Pareto-optimality framework, and motivates an adaptive granularity strategy that provably achieves the compute-performance Pareto frontier. Empirical results on MATH-500, GSM8K, and AIME benchmarks corroborate all four theoretical claims, with our adaptive strategy outperforming fixed-granularity baselines by up to 3.1% accuracy at matched compute.

When an LLM formalizes natural language, how do we know the output is faithful? We propose a roundtrip verification approach which does not require ground-truth annotations: formalize a statement, translate the result back to natural language, re-formalize, and use a formal tool to check logical equivalence. When the two formalizations agree, this provides evidence of a faithful formalization. When they disagree, a stage-level diagnosis localizes the error to a specific translation step, and a scoped repair operator attempts to correct that step. We evaluate the framework on two statutory domains (the Texas Transportation Code and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code) using two LLMs (Claude Opus~4.6 and GPT-5.2) with three repair baselines. Diagnosis-guided scoped repair is the most effective method, with effectiveness contingent on the reliability of the diagnosis function. Across both domains and both models, under our full repair system, rules that fail the equivalence check show 1.4x-2.5x more natural language inference (NLI) drift than rules that pass it.

AI-generated media are advancing rapidly, raising pressing concerns for content authenticity and digital trust. We introduce DYMAPIA, a multi-domain Deepfake detection framework that fuses spatial, spectral, and temporal cues to capture subtle traces of manipulation in visual data. The system builds dynamic anomaly masks by combining evidence from Fourier spectra, local texture descriptors, edge irregularities, and optical flow consistency, which highlight tampered regions with fine spatial accuracy. These masks guide DistXCNet, a lightweight classifier distilled from Xception and optimized with depthwise separable convolutions for fast, region-focused classification. This joint design achieves state-of-the-art results, with accuracy and F1-scores exceeding 99% on FF++, Celeb-DF, and VDFD benchmarks, while keeping the model compact enough for real-time use. Beyond outperforming existing full-frame and multidomain detectors, DYMAPIA demonstrates deployment readiness for time-critical forensic tasks, including media verification, misinformation defense, and secure content filtering.

We present QED, an open-source multi-agent system that turns human-provided research questions into complete mathematical proofs without further human guidance. Its pipeline is designed to overcome common failures of single-query proof generation by separating planning, proving, and verification: a decomposition agent structures the proof search, prover agents generate candidate arguments, and verifier agents check correctness. In collaboration with domain experts, we evaluated QED on 18 research-level projects of varying difficulty. QED produced five original works across algebraic geometry, fluid PDEs, probability, and inverse problems. Expert assessments regard these works as solid specialized research contributions, with three comparable in difficulty and scope to work commonly published in established specialist mathematics venues. QED is released at https://github.com/proofQED/QED.

Recent advances in formal theorem proving have focused on Olympiad-level mathematics, leaving undergraduate domains largely unexplored. Optimization, fundamental to machine learning, operations research, and scientific computing, remains underserved by existing provers. Its reliance on domain-specific formalisms (convexity, optimality conditions, and algorithmic analysis) creates significant distribution shift, making naive domain transfer ineffective. We present OptProver, a trained model that achieves robust transfer from Olympiad to undergraduate optimization. Starting from a strong Olympiad-level prover, our pipeline mitigates distribution shift through two key innovations. First, we employ large-scale optimization-focused data curation via expert iteration. Second, we introduce a specialized preference learning objective that integrates perplexity-weighted optimization with a mechanism to penalize valid but non-progressing proof steps. This not only addresses distribution shifts but also guides the search toward efficient trajectories. To enable rigorous evaluation, we construct a novel benchmark in Lean 4 focused on optimization. On this benchmark, OptProver achieves state-of-the-art Pass@1 and Pass@32 among comparably sized models while maintaining competitive performance on general theorem-proving tasks, demonstrating effective domain transfer without catastrophic forgetting.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in formal theorem proving, yet evaluating semantic correctness remains challenging. Existing evaluations rely on indirect proxies such as lexical overlap with human-annotated proof, or expensive manual inspection. Inspired by the shift from lexical comparison to test-based evaluation in code generation, we propose T , a framework that evaluates the semantic correctness of formal theorems: a generated theorem is considered correct only if all dependent successor theorems compile successfully, analogous to integration testing. We construct a benchmark from 5 real-world Lean 4 repositories, comprising 2,206 problems paired with 41 successor theorems on average, automatically extracted without human effort. Experiments demonstrate that while state-of-the-art models achieve high compilation success, they perform significantly worse under our semantic metric. The best model, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, achieves only 38.9% Testing Accuracy on the full set, given both natural language proof and successor theorems as context, revealing a critical gap in current theorem generation capabilities.

Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise. When an AI agent queries regulated data, invokes effectful tools, and mutates persistent state, correctness is not captured by whether a terminal output looks plausible. The operative questions are whether each step was authorized under a contract, whether the recorded history is tamper-evident, and whether the trajectory can be reconstructed deterministically. We formalize this as runtime proof of execution. An execution is a triple $x = (C, T, R)$: a contract $C$, an Execution Causal Event Stream (ECES) $T$, and a replay context $R$. A well-formedness predicate and five validator-checkable invariants form the PoE validity predicate. Five semantic guarantees describe authorization, path compliance, null effect on deny, history integrity, and replayability. We prove soundness under explicit cryptographic and deployment assumptions: any PPT adversary that produces a PoE-valid execution violating a semantic guarantee yields a signature forgery, a hash collision, or a quantified deployment-failure event. The Prime Execution Model (PEM) separates planning, enforcement, effect, and recordkeeping into distinct authority planes; a lemma reduces trace completeness to Effector-exclusive credentialing. An Execution Attestation Certificate is issued only when PoE = 1. In a single-node TypeScript prototype, PoE adds approximately 2.7 ms on a minimal flow and 4.4% overhead on concurrent batch workloads; a standard eight-event trace compresses to approximately 1.1 KB; injected Gateway-bypass and trace-mutation attacks are rejected. PoE does not replace consensus, TEEs, or zkVMs; it binds authorization, effect, history, and replay into a single runtime-checkable object so that governed execution becomes attestable under contract.

Recent evidence suggests that frontier AI systems can exhibit agentic misalignment, generating and executing harmful actions derived from internally constructed goals, even without explicit user requests. Existing mitigation methods, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and constitutional prompting, operate primarily at the model level and provide only probabilistic safety guarantees. We propose the Policy-Execution-Authorization (PEA) architecture, a "separation-of-powers" design that enforces safety at the system level. PEA decouples intent generation, authorization, and execution into independent, isolated layers connected via cryptographically constrained capability tokens. We present five core contributions: (C1) an Intent Verification Layer (IVL) for ensuring capability-intent consistency; (C2) Intent Lineage Tracking (ILT), which binds all executable intents to the originating user request via cryptographic anchors; (C3) Goal Drift Detection, which rejects semantically divergent intents below a configurable threshold; (C4) an Output Semantic Gate (OSG) that detects implicit coercion using a structured $K \times I \times P$ threat calculus (Knowledge, Influence, Policy); and (C5) a formal verification framework proving that goal integrity is maintained even under adversarial model compromise. By shifting agent alignment from a behavioral property to a structurally enforced system constraint, PEA provides a robust foundation for the governance of autonomous agents.

In 2016, Viazovska famously solved the sphere packing problem in dimension $8$, using modular forms to construct a 'magic' function satisfying optimality conditions determined by Cohn and Elkies in 2003. In March 2024, Hariharan and Viazovska launched a project to formalize this solution and related mathematical facts in the Lean Theorem Prover. A significant milestone was achieved in February 2026: the result was formally verified, with the final stages of the verification done by Math, Inc.'s autoformalization model 'Gauss'. We discuss the techniques used to achieve this milestone, reflect on the unique collaboration between humans and Gauss, and discuss project objectives that remain.

Lean 4 autoformalization has become increasingly popular in recent years, with frontier language models and open-weight autoformalizers now producing valid formalizations of mathematical theorems. However, these evaluations often rely on single canonical phrasings of theorems and rarely probe whether outputs are robust to natural variation in inputs, while prior work has shown that semantically equivalent paraphrases often induce divergent formal outputs. We study the structure of these divergences in Lean 4 by applying deterministic paraphrase rules to datasets of undergraduate and Olympiad-level math problems. Across four frontier models and three open-weight autoformalizers, we find that paraphrase sensitivity is dominated by failures at the code-generation layer, and that these failures are typed differently by dataset. Furthermore, these patterns generalize to open-weight models, showing that state-of-the-art autoformalizers still struggle to generate valid Lean code. Our results provide a failure-mode taxonomy for autoformalization and motivate training-time interventions targeted at specific compilation failures.

Formalising informal mathematical reasoning into formally verifiable code is a significant challenge for large language models. In scientific fields such as physics, domain-specific machinery (\textit{e.g.} Dirac notation, vector calculus) imposes additional formalisation challenges that modern LLMs and agentic approaches have yet to tackle. To aid autoformalisation in scientific domains, we present FormalScience; a domain-agnostic human-in-the-loop agentic pipeline that enables a single domain expert (without deep formal language experience) to produce \textit{syntactically correct} and \textit{semantically aligned} formal proofs of informal reasoning for low economic cost. Applying FormalScience to physics, we construct FormalPhysics, a dataset of 200 university-level (LaTeX) physics problems and solutions (primarily quantum mechanics and electromagnetism), along with their Lean4 formal representations. Compared to existing formal math benchmarks, FormalPhysics achieves perfect formal validity and exhibits greater statement complexity. We evaluate open-source models and proprietary systems on a statement autoformalisation task on our dataset via zero-shot prompting, self-refinement with error feedback, and a novel multi-stage agentic approach, and explore autoformalisation limitations in modern LLM-based approaches. We provide the first systematic characterisation of semantic drift in physics autoformalisation in terms of concepts such as notational collapse and abstraction elevation which reveals what formal language verifies when full semantic preservation is unattainable. We release the codebase together with an interactive UI-based FormalScience system which facilitates autoformalisation and theorem proving in scientific domains beyond physics.https://github.com/jmeadows17/formal-science

Verification is becoming central to both reinforcement-learning-based training and inference-time control of large language models (LLMs). Yet current verifiers face a fundamental trade-off: LLM-based verifiers are expressive but hard to control and prone to error, while deterministic executable verifiers are reliable and interpretable but often limited in capability. We study the following question: given a development set of LLM outputs and labels for a target objective, such as correctness, can we automatically induce a minimal set of Python verifiers whose joint satisfaction closely matches that objective? We propose AutoPyVerifier, a framework that uses an LLM to synthesize candidate verifier functions and then refines them through search over a directed acyclic graph (DAG). By navigating the DAG, AutoPyVerifier systematically explores the space of deterministic executable verifiers and selects a compact verifier set whose joint satisfaction best approximates the target objective. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, function calling, and instruction-following benchmarks for several state-of-the-art LLMs, AutoPyVerifier improves target-objective prediction by up to 55.0 F1 points over the initial LLM-generated verifier sets. Additional analyses show that the most useful verification targets vary by benchmark and model, and that the DAG-based search shifts the learned verifier sets toward more structural and semantically grounded checks. We further show that exposing the discovered verifier set to an LLM as an external tool improves downstream accuracy by up to 17.0 points. We release our code

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.

The IC3 algorithm represents the state-of-the-art (SOTA) hardware model checking technique, owing to its robust performance and scalability. A significant body of research has focused on enhancing the solving efficiency of the IC3 algorithm, with particular attention to the inductive generalization process: a critical phase wherein the algorithm seeks to generalize a counterexample to inductiveness (CTI), which typically is a state leading to a bad state, into a broader set of states. This inductive generalization is a primary source of clauses in IC3 and thus plays a pivotal role in determining the overall effectiveness of the algorithm. Despite its importance, existing approaches often rely on fixed inductive generalization strategies, overlooking the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of the verification environment in which spurious counterexamples arise. This rigidity can limit the quality of generated clauses and, consequently, the performance of IC3. To address this limitation, we propose a lightweight machine-learning-based framework that dynamically selects appropriate inductive generalization strategies in response to the evolving verification context. Specifically, we employ a multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithm to adaptively choose inductive generalization strategies based on real-time feedback from the verification process. The agent is updated by evaluating the quality of generalization outcomes, thereby refining its strategy selection over time. Empirical evaluation on a benchmark suite comprising 914 instances, primarily drawn from the latest HWMCC collection, demonstrates the efficacy of our approach. When implemented on the state-of-the-art model checker rIC3, our method solves 26 to 50 more cases than the baselines and improves the PAR-2 score by 194.72 to 389.29.

Autonomous GUI agents face two fundamental challenges: early stopping, where agents prematurely declare success without verifiable evidence, and repetitive loops, where agents cycle through the same failing actions without recovery. We present VLAA-GUI, a modular GUI agentic framework built around three integrated components that guide the system on when to Stop, Recover, and Search. First, a mandatory Completeness Verifier enforces UI-observable success criteria and verification at every finish step -- with an agent-level verifier that cross-examines completion claims with decision rules, rejecting those lacking direct visual evidence. Second, a mandatory Loop Breaker provides multi-tier filtering: switching interaction mode after repeated failures, forcing strategy changes after persistent screen-state recurrence, and binding reflection signals to strategy shifts. Third, an on-demand Search Agent searches online for unfamiliar workflows by directly querying a capable LLM with search ability, returning results as plain text. We additionally integrate a Coding Agent for code-intensive actions and a Grounding Agent for precise action grounding, both invoked on demand when required. We evaluate VLAA-GUI across five top-tier backbones, including Opus 4.5, 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, on two benchmarks with Linux and Windows tasks, achieving top performance on both (77.5% on OSWorld and 61.0% on WindowsAgentArena). Notably, three of the five backbones surpass human performance (72.4%) on OSWorld in a single pass. Ablation studies show that all three proposed components consistently improve a strong backbone, while a weaker backbone benefits more from these tools when the step budget is sufficient. Further analysis also shows that the Loop Breaker nearly halves wasted steps for loop-prone models.

The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics assumes that welfare-bearing agents are autonomous and implicitly relies on a binary distinction between autonomy and instrumentality. Welfare subjects are those who have autonomy and therefore the capacity to choose and enter into utility comparisons, while everything else does not. In post-AGI economies this presupposition becomes nontrivial because artificial systems may exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, functioning as tools, delegates, strategic market actors, manipulators of choice environments, or possible welfare subjects. We argue that the theorem ought to be subject to an autonomy qualification where the impact of these changes in autonomy assumptions is incorporated. Using a minimal general-equilibrium model with autonomy-conditioned welfare, welfare-status assignment, delegation accounting, and verification institutions, we set out conditions for which autonomy-complete competitive equilibrium is autonomy-Pareto efficient. The classical theorem is recovered as the low-autonomy limit.

Hospital Quality Improvement (QI) plays a critical role in optimizing healthcare delivery by translating high-level hospital goals into actionable solutions. A critical step of QI is to identify the key modifiable contributing factors, a process we call QI factor discovery, typically through expert-driven semi-structured qualitative tools like fishbone diagrams, chart reviews, and Lean Healthcare methods. AI has the potential to transform and accelerate QI factor discovery, which is traditionally time- and resource-intensive and limited in reproducibility and auditability. Nevertheless, current AI alignment methods assume the task is well-defined, whereas QI factor discovery is an exploratory, fuzzy, and iterative sense-making process that relies on complex implicit expert judgments. To design an AI pipeline that formalizes the QI process while preserving its exploratory components, we propose viewing the task as learning not only LLM prompts but also the overarching natural-language specifications. In particular, we map QI factor discovery to steps of the classical AI/ML development process (problem formalization, model learning, and model validation) where the specifications are tunable hyperparameters. Domain experts and AI agents iteratively refine both the overarching specifications and AI pipeline until AI extractions are concordant with expert annotations and aligned with clinical objectives. We applied this "Human-AI Spec-Solution Co-optimization" framework at an urban safety-net hospital to identify factors driving prolonged length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmissions. The resulting AI-for-QI pipelines achieved $\ge 70\%$ concordance with expert annotations. Compared to prior manual Lean analyses, the AI pipeline was substantially more efficient, recovered previous findings, surfaced new modifiable factors, and produced auditable reasoning traces.