The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2311.03739 · v2 · pith:CWAS3JGZ · submitted 2023-11-07 · cs.FL · cs.AI

Leveraging Large Language Models for Automated Proof Synthesis in Rust

Reviewed by Pithpith:CWAS3JGZopen to challenge →

classification cs.FL cs.AI
keywords analysisllmsproofcodeprototypestaticverificationability
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Formal verification can provably guarantee the correctness of critical system software, but the high proof burden has long hindered its wide adoption. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown success in code analysis and synthesis. In this paper, we present a combination of LLMs and static analysis to synthesize invariants, assertions, and other proof structures for a Rust-based formal verification framework called Verus. In a few-shot setting, LLMs demonstrate impressive logical ability in generating postconditions and loop invariants, especially when analyzing short code snippets. However, LLMs lack the ability to retain and propagate context information, a strength of traditional static analysis. Based on these observations, we developed a prototype based on OpenAI's GPT-4 model. Our prototype decomposes the verification task into multiple smaller ones, iteratively queries GPT-4, and combines its output with lightweight static analysis. We evaluated the prototype with a developer in the automation loop on 20 vector-manipulating programs. The results demonstrate that it significantly reduces human effort in writing entry-level proof code.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Specifications for VeriFast

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs preserve functional behavior in over 91% of generated VeriFast specifications and source code but achieve only 31.4% verification success, with 94% of failures due to separation logic domain knowledge errors.

  2. Large Lemma Miners: Can LLMs do Induction Proofs for Hardware?

    cs.LO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A neurosymbolic method using two LLM prompting frameworks generates provably correct inductive arguments for 84% of a set of mid-size open-source RTL hardware designs.