Aug 2026· Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages· Vol 10, pp. 1059 - 1077· 1 citation· 49 references
TL;DR
An anecdotal account of AI agents, equipped with a CLI and a proof assistant, producing thousands of lines of machine-checked code, and the role of the human expert, whose contribution reduces to providing natural-language problem descriptions, reviewing auto-generated specifications, and occasionally supplying a key invariant.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of AI-assisted coding is directly proportional to an increase in software bugs; can AI-assisted formal verification help reduce bugs at a comparable scale? In this experience report we give an anecdotal account of AI agents, equipped with a CLI and a proof assistant, producing thousands of lines of machine-checked code. We detail our experience across different proof-engineering tasks: implementing verified data structures for a standard library, translating unverified code into a formal language while inferring its specification, and porting and refactoring existing proofs to new frameworks. We present the techniques that made agentic proof-oriented programming (PoP) effective---or ineffective---and characterize the role of the human expert, whose contribution reduces to providing natural-language problem descriptions, reviewing auto-generated specifications, and occasionally supplying a key invariant. Our findings suggest that this division of labor provides substantial leverage to the human expert in the loop: three experts, over the course of two weeks, completed case studies whose manual proof-engineering cost we estimate at roughly half a year.
It is shown that imposing a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it is unnecessary and limiting, and a state-of-the-art model can write proofs for verified software development fully and automatically.
Shuangxiang Kan, Shuanglong Kan, Sebastian Ertel· 0 citations
Neuro-formal verification is introduced, which harnesses that automation for developers of mainstream programming languages and returns a Dafny proof of correctness or of a bug on 57% of the entries at 92% precision, and a CBMC counterexample for 63% of the buggy programs at 90% precision.
This work proposes Formal Disco: a distributed system for coordination of LLM-based workers that can be easily applied to open-ended synthetic data generation at scale and proposes a principle of maximum entropy for synthetic program generation.
Gabriel Poesia, Simon Henniger, Tzu-Han Hsu et al.· 0 citations
AoA lifts the agent off source text and onto the abstract syntax tree (AST): the model supplies proofs as JSON representations of Minilang's AST and drives the prover through a tree-edit model that fuses proof operations and states into one proof tree, so each operation carries its own subgoal's state, readable directly off the tree.
Qiyuan Xu, Joshua Ong Jun Leang, Renxi Wang et al.· 0 citations
Vero is introduced, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level and an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation.
Zhe Ye, Hantao Lou, Yuechun Sun et al.· 0 citations