Md Erfan, Md Kamal Hossain Chowdhury, Ahmed Ryan, Md Rayhanur Rahman
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automated software engineering, yet their guarantee of correctness is frequently undermined by erroneous or hallucinated code. To enforce model honesty, formal verification requires LLMs to synthesize implementation logic alongside formal specifications that are subsequently proven correct by a mathematical verifier. However, the transition from informal natural language t ...
o precise formal specification remains an arduous task. Our work addresses this by providing the NaturalLanguage2VerifiedCode (NL2VC)-60 dataset: a collection of 60 complex algorithmic problems. We evaluate 11 randomly selected problem sets across seven open-weight LLMs using a tiered prompting strategy: contextless prompts, signature prompts providing structural anchors, and self-healing prompts utilizing iterative feedback from the Dafny verifier. To address vacuous verification, where models satisfy verifiers with trivial specifications, we integrate the uDebug platform to ensure functional validation. Our results show that while contextless prompting leads to near-universal failure, structural signatures and iterative self-healing facilitate a dramatic performance turnaround. Specifically, Gemma 4-31B achieved a 90.91\% verification success rate, while GPT-OSS 120B rose from zero to 81.82\% success with signature-guided feedback. These findings indicate that formal verification is now attainable for open-weight LLMs, which serve as effective apprentices for synthesizing complex annotations and facilitating high-assurance software development.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural language processing | GPT-OSS-120B | Semantic/Type Errors | 45 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Natural language processing | Signature Prompt | Semantic/Type Errors | 111 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automated software engineering, yet their guarantee of correctness is frequently undermined by erroneous or hallucinated code.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Natural language processing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.