Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Supporting Software Formal Verification with Large Language Models: An Experimental Study

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 2507.04857 v1 pith:SBNE4UGT submitted 2025-07-07 cs.SE

Supporting Software Formal Verification with Large Language Models: An Experimental Study

classification cs.SE
keywords verificationformalrequirementslanguagemodelsspecverifyclaudecocosim
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Formal methods have been employed for requirements verification for a long time. However, it is difficult to automatically derive properties from natural language requirements. SpecVerify addresses this challenge by integrating large language models (LLMs) with formal verification tools, providing a more flexible mechanism for expressing requirements. This framework combines Claude 3.5 Sonnet with the ESBMC verifier to form an automated workflow. Evaluated on nine cyber-physical systems from Lockheed Martin, SpecVerify achieves 46.5% verification accuracy, comparable to NASA's CoCoSim, but with lower false positives. Our framework formulates assertions that extend beyond the expressive power of LTL and identifies falsifiable cases that are missed by more traditional methods. Counterexample analysis reveals CoCoSim's limitations stemming from model connection errors and numerical approximation issues. While SpecVerify advances verification automation, our comparative study of Claude, ChatGPT, and Llama shows that high-quality requirements documentation and human monitoring remain critical, as models occasionally misinterpret specifications. Our results demonstrate that LLMs can significantly reduce the barriers to formal verification, while highlighting the continued importance of human-machine collaboration in achieving optimal results.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The 4/$\delta$ Bound: Designing Predictable LLM-Verifier Systems for Formal Method Guarantee

    cs.AI 2025-11 reject novelty 2.0

    The 4/δ bound is the mean of four geometric distributions, not a new theorem, and the simulation validation is circular.