REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 53 references
How Powerful are LLMs in Generating Formal Program Specifications?
T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that formal specs can be judged by test-case proofs, which exposes real model differences hidden by equivalence-based benchmarks.
desk verdict The paper ships a genuinely useful artifact—the first full HumanEval Rocq specification suite—but the headline REJECT-all metric is empirically indistinguishable from PASS-all in every reported row, so the paper's central methodological claim is softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is the COINS pipeline: each generated specification is a Rocq proposition spec(input, output) that gets instantiated on concrete input-output pairs, producing proof obligations the model must discharge with Rocq-checked proofs. Positive cases test coverage; negative cases, produced by mutating canonical implementations, test whether the specification is too permissive; a candidate specification must pass all positive proof obligations and have no negative case for which an acceptance proof is found. The design leans on an asymmetry principle the paper formalizes: a constructed proof is reliable evidence by the soundness of the Rocq type checker, while a failed proof is inherently ambiguous, so the benchmark maximizes successful proofs rather than treating failures as verdicts. An optional final stage attempts equivalence to human-written reference specifications, but the paper keeps that stage secondary because it reintroduces the proof burden that hides quality.
What would settle it
Take any candidate specification from Table 2 and run a second prover or an exhaustive tactic search on its ten negative cases; if a negative case is shown in Rocq to satisfy the specification, REJECT all has passed an over-permissive spec and the candidate rates mix quality with missed proofs.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
COINS's claim is that specification quality can be read off from how a specification behaves on concrete, trusted test cases: a candidate specification must provably accept all positive cases and must not be provably over-permissive on mutated negative cases. The paper reports candidate rates from 1.22% for the weakest model to 28.05% for the strongest, and an ablation that improves specification quality by +5.01% versus +3.05% for a stronger verifier. The paper's conclusion is that specification generation remains a hard open problem, that full equivalence proofs systematically underestimate quality because verification complexity obscures real differences, and that test-case-based formal reasoning is a faithful, discriminative middle ground for future benchmarks.
Load-bearing premise
REJECT all assumes that an LLM prover's failure to construct an acceptance proof for a negative case counts as the specification rejecting that case, but the pipeline never checks a formal proof of rejection.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Candidate rates from 1.22% to 28.05% reflect genuine differences in specification-writing ability rather than prover skill, because test-case proof obligations are small enough for the chosen verifier to mostly discharge.
- Equivalence-based metrics understate LLM specification quality: only 31.0% of test-case-passing specs were provably isomorphic to human references, so full equivalence proofs should not be the primary evaluation target.
- Specification quality is a distinct capability from code generation: even where HumanEval coding is saturated, model gaps on specifications remain wide, so specification synthesis deserves separate and more discriminative benchmarks.
- Ablation results imply that both generation quality and verifier power matter, with specification quality contributing +5.01% and a stronger verifier +3.05%, so benchmark protocols must control both factors.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial: the asymmetry principle—proofs are reliable, failed proofs are not—should transfer to other formal artifacts, so benchmarks for invariants, contracts, and autoformalization that treat failed proof attempts as verdicts will systematically underestimate model ability.
- Editorial: a concrete follow-up test is to rerun COINS on the 46 strongest-model candidates with a second independent prover or a stronger tactic search and measure how many unseen acceptance proofs appear among the skipped negative cases.
- Editorial: the mutated negative cases come from a fixed budget around canonical implementations, so over-permissive specifications whose bad outputs lie outside that neighborhood can pass; adding property-based random negative cases would make REJECT all harder to fool.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript introduces COINS, a Rocq-based evaluation framework for LLM-generated formal program specifications. Instead of proving full semantic equivalence, COINS instantiates each candidate specification on positive and negative test cases and asks an LLM prover to discharge the resulting proof obligations; a specification becomes a 'candidate' when it passes both the positive-acceptance stage and the negative-rejection stage. The authors contribute a manually written Rocq specification for each of the 164 HumanEval problems, generate 1,640 mutated negative cases, and evaluate six LLMs. They report large gaps in specification-generation ability, with REJECT all rates from 1.22% to 28.05%, and argue that test-case-based formal reasoning is more faithful and discriminative than full equivalence proving. The paper also presents an equivalence analysis between human and LLM candidates, an ablation study separating specification quality from prover strength, and secondary analyses of syntax errors, Fixpoint usage, and input-type difficulty.
Significance. The curated human-written Rocq specification suite for all 164 HumanEval problems is a genuinely useful resource, and the positive-case proof obligations are machine-checked, giving the PASS all results a sound core. The framework's goal of separating specification quality from prover capability is timely, and the reported model ordering is a falsifiable empirical claim. However, the headline REJECT all metric currently rests on unverified LLM judgments for negative cases and is numerically identical to PASS all in every reported row; the equivalence-based faithfulness validation is also too thin (9 proven equivalents and 3 manual inspections) to carry the 'faithful and discriminative' conclusion. The contribution is therefore conditional: the benchmark and dataset are valuable, but the central evidential claim about rejecting over-permissive specifications is not yet supported.
major comments (4)
- [§3.2, Table 2, Appendix B.4] The REJECT all stage does not provide the sound negative evidence that the abstract and conclusion claim. Section 3.2 states that if the LLM judges a negative case as rejected, the formal proof is skipped because 'proving rejection can be harder,' and Appendix B.4 explicitly concedes that R_all(S)=top does not guarantee that S rejects all negative cases. This would be acceptable as a heuristic if the stage were shown to be informative, but Table 2 shows that REJECT all equals PASS all in every row (e.g., GPT-4o 4.27%/4.27%, DeepSeek-V3.1 1.22%/1.22%, Gemini 3 Pro Preview 28.05%/28.05%), so no specification was ever eliminated by the negative stage across 164 problems and 1,640 negative cases. The headline candidate rates are therefore indistinguishable from positive-case acceptance rates, and the interpretation 'Precision Emerges from Coverage' is only one of two readings; the other is that the negative judge rarely or never attempts acceptance proofs. To support the central claim, the authors should either machine-check rejection (for example, prove False from the specification and the negative input-output pair), or report per-negative-case LLM judgment statistics and demonstrate, on a known over-permissive specification, that the REJECT all stage can actually fail a candidate.
- [Appendix E, Table 1, §4.2] The faithfulness evidence is too thin to support the claim that COINS provides a 'faithful and discriminative measure of progress.' Only 29 of 80 unique problems have both a human and an LLM candidate; of those, only 9 have provable equivalence in both directions, 3 are manually judged equivalent, and 17 fail in both directions. Manual inspection of the 3 single-direction cases does not rule out genuine semantic divergence in the 17 bidirectional failures, so the aggregate numbers do not establish that candidates passing COINS are semantically equivalent to the curated human intent. The authors should either provide a much larger equivalence-validation sample with error analysis of the failures, or explicitly restrict the faithfulness claim to 'consistent with all tested positive and negative cases.'
- [Table 2 vs Figure 1, §4.2, Appendix E] The headline numbers are internally inconsistent. Table 2 reports Gemini 3 Pro Preview REJECT all as 28.05% (46), while Figure 1 annotates the pipeline as 164 to 43 candidates and Section 4.2 gives 26.22% for Gemini; Appendix E reports 50 validated human candidates even though Table 1 lists only 49 human specifications passing PASS all. Under the paper's own candidate definition (PASS all plus REJECT all), these counts cannot all be correct, and they prevent a reader from reproducing the main result. Please reconcile the numbers and report the exact per-stage filtering counts for every model.
- [§4.3, Appendix B.5, Appendix E] The statement that only 31.0% of test-based candidates yield 'provably isomorphic specifications' is used to conclude that equivalence proving systematically underestimates specification quality. The 31.0% figure is 9 out of 29 overlapping problems, not a rate over all candidates, and the 17 bidirectional failures are not analyzed to distinguish prover failure from semantic difference. Without a control (for example, known-equivalent specification pairs discharged by the same prover), the conclusion that equivalence-based evaluation is unreliable because of proof complexity is not established; it may instead reflect that many candidate specifications are not actually equivalent to the human intent.
minor comments (3)
- [§4.2] The claim that 'syntactically valid Rocq specifications are often semantically precise under our test-based evaluation' is difficult to reconcile with Appendix J's example of a syntactically valid but contradictory specification; please qualify the claim with the observed failure rates.
- [Table 4] The row for Gemini 3 Pro Preview ('17 8 5 636') appears to be a rendering error; the counts should sum to 36.
- [Appendix B.1, Definition B.1] The probability statement Pr[VERIFY_M(S,i,o)=proof]=0 when S(i,o)=⊥ should state that 'proof' means a type-checked proof, since an LLM can emit invalid proof scripts that the Rocq kernel rejects.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: COINS is an empirical benchmark whose headline scores come from Rocq-checked proofs on externally sourced HumanEval+/human-authored specifications; the negative-stage caveat is an acknowledged validity limitation, not a circular reduction.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is an empirical evaluation pipeline, not a formal derivation, and its core scores are anchored in externally sourced inputs: HumanEval+/mutant-generated test cases (Sections 3.1, A) and human-authored Rocq specifications (Section 3.1, 4.1). The prover selection in RQ1 uses these human specifications as an anchor, which is a benchmark design choice rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-referential elements are the two related-work self-citations (Fang et al. 2025; Yang et al. 2025) describing the authors' earlier specification-synthesis work, and neither is load-bearing for the central evaluation. The one caveat that must be weighed is REJECT all: Section 3.2 states 'If the LLM judges rejection, we skip the formal proof as proving rejection can be harder,' and Appendix B.4 explicitly concedes 'R_all(S)=top does not guarantee S rejects all negative cases—the LLM may fail to find proofs even when they exist.' This is an acknowledged epistemic limitation of the negative stage, not a hidden circular reduction: REJECT all is defined as absence of a found acceptance proof, and the paper does not pretend the negative direction is machine-checked. The empirical observation that PASS all and REJECT all coincide in every row of Table 2 is a validity and interpretability concern (it suggests the negative stage never eliminated a candidate in these runs), but it is an empirical result, not an equation that equates the two metrics by construction. Accordingly, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit a circular derivation chain; any criticism should be framed as correctness/validity risk rather than circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- number_of_negative_cases_per_problem =
10
- max_proof_attempts =
3
- proof_generation_temperature =
0.7
- positive_test_suite =
HumanEval+ (average 755.98 cases per problem)
assumptions (5)
- standard math Rocq's type checker is sound: every accepted proof establishes a true proposition.
- ad hoc to paper The 164 human-written Rocq specifications are semantically correct reflections of HumanEval intent.
- domain assumption HumanEval+ positive test outputs are correct.
- domain assumption Mutation-generated negative cases represent incorrect behavior.
- ad hoc to paper Gemini 3 Pro Preview's proof capability transfers from human-written to LLM-generated specifications.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of How Powerful are LLMs in Generating Formal Program Specifications?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNAWYNP6
@misc{pith2026260813077,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: How Powerful are LLMs in Generating Formal Program Specifications?},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNAWYNP6}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13077}
}
read the original abstract
Formal verification provides strong guarantees of software correctness, but its adoption is limited by the high cost of writing precise formal specifications. While recent large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in theorem proving and verified code generation, their true ability to generate program specifications remains unclear. Existing evaluations require either verifying implementation conformance or proving semantic equivalence between specifications, both of which are formidably difficult and may conflate proof difficulty with specification quality. To address this problem, we introduce Coins, a Rocq based evaluation framework that assesses specification quality by instantiating specifications under evaluation on trusted test cases and generating concrete proof obligations. This design aligns with the asymmetric nature of formal reasoning, where successful proofs provide reliable evidence while proof failures are inherently ambiguous. Using Coins, we conduct a large scale study on HumanEval with a curated set of human written Rocq specifications. Our results show that specification generation remains a formidable challenge, and that verification complexity can obscure genuine differences in specification quality. Overall, we find that accurate specification evaluation, rather than model scaling alone, is central to understanding the power of LLMs for specification synthesis, and that test case based formal reasoning offers a more faithful and discriminative measure of progress.
Figures
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Huet, G. The. Rapport Technique , volume=
-
[2]
De Moura, Leonardo and Kong, Soonho and Avigad, Jeremy and Van Doorn, Floris and von Raumer, Jakob , booktitle=. The. 2015 , organization=
work page 2015
- [3]
-
[4]
Klein, Gerwin and Elphinstone, Kevin and Heiser, Gernot and Andronick, June and Cock, David and Derrin, Philip and Elkaduwe, Dhammika and Engelhardt, Kai and Kolanski, Rafal and Norrish, Michael and others , booktitle=
-
[5]
Leroy, Xavier and Blazy, Sandrine and K
-
[6]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year=
Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year=
-
[7]
International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=
Learning to prove theorems via interacting with proof assistants , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2019 , organization=
work page 2019
-
[8]
Chen, Luoxin and Gu, Jinming and Huang, Liankai and Huang, Wenhao and Jiang, Zhicheng and Jie, Allan and Jin, Xiaoran and Jin, Xing and Li, Chenggang and Ma, Kaijing and others , journal=
Show all 53 references
-
[9]
Enhancing transformation from natural language to signal temporal logic using
Fang, Yue and Jin, Zhi and An, Jie and Chen, Hongshen and Chen, Xiaohong and Zhan, Naijun , booktitle=. Enhancing transformation from natural language to signal temporal logic using
-
[10]
International Conference on Computer Aided Verification , pages=
nl2spec: Interactively translating unstructured natural language to temporal logics with large language models , author=. International Conference on Computer Aided Verification , pages=. 2023 , organization=
2023
-
[11]
Misu, Md Rakib Hossain and Lopes, Cristina V and Ma, Iris and Noble, James , journal=. Towards. 2024 , publisher=
2024
-
[12]
Le-Cong, Thanh and Le, Bach and Murray, Toby , booktitle=. Can
-
[13]
Generating correctness proofs with neural networks , booktitle =
Alex Sanchez. Generating correctness proofs with neural networks , booktitle =
-
[14]
Rabe and Talia Ringer and Yuriy Brun , editor =
Emily First and Markus N. Rabe and Talia Ringer and Yuriy Brun , editor =. Baldur: Whole-Proof Generation and Repair with Large Language Models , booktitle =
-
[15]
LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models , volume =
Yang, Kaiyu and Swope, Aidan and Gu, Alex and Chalamala, Rahul and Song, Peiyang and Yu, Shixing and Godil, Saad and Prenger, Ryan J and Anandkumar, Animashree , booktitle =. LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models , volume =
-
[16]
Barrett and Nina Narodytska , title =
Haoze Wu and Clark W. Barrett and Nina Narodytska , title =. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations,
-
[17]
2024 , url=
Haiming Wang and Huajian Xin and Chuanyang Zheng and Zhengying Liu and Qingxing Cao and Yinya Huang and Jing Xiong and Han Shi and Enze Xie and Jian Yin and Zhenguo Li and Xiaodan Liang , booktitle=. 2024 , url=
2024
-
[18]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333 , year=
Deepseek-prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333 , year=
-
[19]
International Conference on Learning Representations , pages=
Deepseek-prover-v1.5: Harnessing proof assistant feedback for reinforcement learning and monte-carlo tree search , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , pages=
-
[20]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21801 , year=
Deepseek-prover-v2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subgoal decomposition , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21801 , year=
-
[21]
Lin, Yong and Tang, Shange and Lyu, Bohan and Wu, Jiayun and Lin, Hongzhou and Yang, Kaiyu and Li, Jia and Xia, Mengzhou and Chen, Danqi and Arora, Sanjeev and others , journal=
-
[22]
Wang, Haiming and Unsal, Mert and Lin, Xiaohan and Baksys, Mantas and Liu, Junqi and Santos, Marco Dos and Sung, Flood and Vinyes, Marina and Ying, Zhenzhe and Zhu, Zekai and others , journal=
-
[23]
Nature , volume=
Olympiad-level formal mathematical reasoning with reinforcement learning , author=. Nature , volume=. 2026 , publisher=
2026
-
[24]
APOLLO: Automated LLM and Lean Collaboration for Advanced Formal Reasoning , volume =
Ospanov, Azim and Farnia, Farzan and Mohit, Roozbeh , booktitle =. APOLLO: Automated LLM and Lean Collaboration for Advanced Formal Reasoning , volume =
-
[25]
Chloe Loughridge and Qinyi Sun and Seth Ahrenbach and Federico Cassano and Chuyue Sun and Ying Sheng and Anish Mudide and Md Rakib Hossain Misu and Nada Amin and Max Tegmark , title =. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , year =
-
[26]
Barrett , title =
Chuyue Sun and Ying Sheng and Oded Padon and Clark W. Barrett , title =
-
[27]
Thakur, Amitayush and Lee, Jasper and Tsoukalas, George and Sistla, Meghana and Zhao, Matthew and Zetzsche, Stefan and Durrett, Greg and Yue, Yisong and Chaudhuri, Swarat , booktitle =
-
[28]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05714 , year=
Proving the Coding Interview: A Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05714 , year=
-
[29]
Brando Miranda and Srivatsava Daruru and Zhanke Zhou and Slim Barkallah and Allen Nie and Iddah Mlauzi and Leni Aniva and Elyas Obbad and Weston Kirk and Ying Li and Santiago Cuellar and Dilara Soylu and Kai Fronsdal and John Sarracino and Andrea Yu and Rylan Schaeffer and Rak...
-
[30]
Ernst and Jeff H
Michael D. Ernst and Jeff H. Perkins and Philip J. Guo and Stephen McCamant and Carlos Pacheco and Matthew S. Tschantz and Chen Xiao , title =. Sci. Comput. Program. , volume =
-
[31]
Enchanting Program Specification Synthesis by Large Language Models Using Static Analysis and Program Verification , booktitle =
Cheng Wen and Jialun Cao and Jie Su and Zhiwu Xu and Shengchao Qin and Mengda He and Haokun Li and Shing. Enchanting Program Specification Synthesis by Large Language Models Using Static Analysis and Program Verification , booktitle =
-
[32]
Lezhi Ma and Shangqing Liu and Yi Li and Xiaofei Xie and Lei Bu , title =. 47th
-
[33]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09550 , year=
Integrating Symbolic Execution with LLMs for Automated Generation of Program Specifications , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09550 , year=
-
[34]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15816 , year=
A Neurosymbolic Approach to Loop Invariant Generation via Weakest Precondition Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15816 , year=
-
[35]
Chen, Zehan and Zhang, Long and Zhang, Zhiwei and Zhang, JingJing and Zhou, Ruoyu and Shen, Yulong and Ma, JianFeng and Yang, Lin , journal=
-
[36]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07948 , year=
Finding Inductive Loop Invariants using Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07948 , year=
-
[37]
Weining Cao and Guangyuan Wu and Tangzhi Xu and Yuan Yao and Hengfeng Wei and Taolue Chen and Xiaoxing Ma , title =. Proc
-
[38]
Pirzada, Muhammad A. A. and Bhayat, Ahmed and Cordeiro, Lucas C. and Reger, Giles , booktitle =. 2024 , pages =
2024
-
[39]
From Informal to Formal -- Incorporating and Evaluating LLM s on Natural Language Requirements to Verifiable Formal Proofs
Cao, Jialun and Lu, Yaojie and Li, Meiziniu and Ma, Haoyang and Li, Haokun and He, Mengda and Wen, Cheng and Sun, Le and Zhang, Hongyu and Qin, Shengchao and Cheung, Shing-Chi and Tian, Cong. From Informal to Formal -- Incorporating and Evaluating LLM s on Natural Language Req...
2025 doi
-
[40]
Use property-based testing to bridge
He, Lehan and Chen, Zeren and Zhang, Zhe and Shao, Jing and Gao, Xiang and Sheng, Lu , journal=. Use property-based testing to bridge
-
[41]
arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09907 , year=
Agentic Property-Based Testing: Finding Bugs Across the Python Ecosystem , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09907 , year=
-
[42]
Validating Formal Specifications with
Cunha, Alcino and Macedo, Nuno , journal=. Validating Formal Specifications with
-
[43]
Chakraborty, Saikat and Lahiri, Shuvendu and Fakhoury, Sarah and Lal, Akash and Musuvathi, Madanlal and Rastogi, Aseem and Senthilnathan, Aditya and Sharma, Rahul and Swamy, Nikhil , booktitle=. Ranking
-
[44]
Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , volume=
Can large language models transform natural language intent into formal method postconditions? , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , volume=. 2024 , publisher=
2024
-
[45]
2018 , publisher=
Cao, Qinxiang and Beringer, Lennart and Gruetter, Samuel and Dodds, Josiah and Appel, Andrew W , journal=. 2018 , publisher=
2018
-
[46]
2024 , publisher=
Zhou, Litao and Qin, Jianxing and Wang, Qinshi and Appel, Andrew W and Cao, Qinxiang , journal=. 2024 , publisher=
2024
-
[47]
Wu, Xiwei and Feng, Yueyang and Lu, Xiaoyang and Lin, Tianchuan and Liu, Kan and Wang, Zhiyi and Wu, Shushu and Xie, Lihan and Yang, Chengxi and Zhong, Hongyi and others , journal=
-
[48]
The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
Neural Theorem Proving for Verification Conditions: A Real-World Benchmark , author=. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
-
[49]
The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
VeriEquivBench: An Equivalence Score for Ground-Truth-Free Evaluation of Formally Verifiable Code , author=. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
-
[50]
2026 , url=
Zhe Ye and Zhengxu Yan and Jingxuan He and Timothe Kasriel and Kaiyu Yang and Dawn Song , booktitle=. 2026 , url=
2026
-
[51]
International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving , pages=
Foundational property-based testing , author=. International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving , pages=. 2015 , organization=
2015
-
[52]
Mutation analysis for
Celik, Ahmet and Palmskog, Karl and Parovic, Marinela and Arias, Emilio Jes. Mutation analysis for. 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , pages=. 2019 , organization=
2019
-
[53]
MutantChick: Type-Preserving Mutation Analysis for
Matteo Cavada and Andrea Col. MutantChick: Type-Preserving Mutation Analysis for. Proceedings of the 35th Italian Conference on Computational Logic -
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.