Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Formal Methods: From Academia to Industrial Practice. A Travel Guide

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2002.07279 v3 pith:DVVWTXFX submitted 2020-02-17 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords manyrecommendationssoftwareformalmethodsresearchachieveaddress
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

For many decades, formal methods are considered to be the way forward to help the software industry to make more reliable and trustworthy software. However, despite this strong belief and many individual success stories, no real change in industrial software development seems to be occurring. In fact, the software industry itself is moving forward rapidly, and the gap between what formal methods can achieve and the daily software-development practice does not appear to be getting smaller (and might even be growing). In the past, many recommendations have already been made on how to develop formal-methods research in order to close this gap. This paper investigates why the gap nevertheless still exists and provides its own recommendations on what can be done by the formal-methods-research community to bridge it. Our recommendations do not focus on open research questions. In fact, formal-methods tools and techniques are already of high quality and can address many non-trivial problems; we do give some technical recommendations on how tools and techniques can be made more accessible. To a greater extent, we focus on the human aspect: how to achieve impact, how to change the way of thinking of the various stakeholders about this issue, and in particular, as a research community, how to alter our behaviour, and instead of competing, collaborate to address this issue.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Leveraging LLMs for Formal Software Requirements -- Challenges and Prospects

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLM-based formalisation of software requirements is promising but faces five persistent challenges; the proposed VERIFAI framework plans to address them with human-in-the-loop and tool-neutral pipelines.

  2. A Short Survey on Formalising Software Requirements using Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A survey summarizing 35 papers on using LLMs to formalize software requirements, but it contains no new experimental results and its classification tables have errors.

  3. Formalising Software Requirements using Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A short project-position paper describing VERIFAI, a planned system for automatic formalisation and traceability of natural language requirements, with no experimental results yet.

Pith tools