aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a closed-loop framework that uses LLMs to iteratively refine Natural Language-to-Signal Temporal Logic translations, significantly boosting accuracy by leveraging precise feedback paths rather than relying solely on forward translation strength. By translating generated formulas back into natural language for user verification, the system bypasses the need for users to handle formal syntax while achieving near-expert agreement rates in cyber-physical system specification tasks.
Feedback Makes Perfect: A Closed-Loop Framework for NL-to-STL Translation
arXiv:2609.33287v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Signal Temporal Logic (STL) enables rigorous verification and control of cyber-physical systems, but writing correct specifications requires expertise that most requirement holders lack. Large language models can translate natural-language (NL) requirements into STL, yet stronger translators alone approach an accuracy ceiling. We argue that this ceiling stems from how the task is posed: one-shot, open-loop translation is somewhat ill-defined. Natural language is ambiguous, and, more fundamentally, what a person writes may not always be what they intend, so the target specification is not fully contained in the input text. We therefore reformulate NL-to-STL translation as a closed-loop feedback process. Each generated formula is translated back into natural language for the user to check, and natural-language corrections drive revision until the user accepts the specification. Users never read or write formal syntax. This framework rests on an asymmetry familiar from feedback control theory. The forward path, from ambiguous language to formal logic, is hard and error-prone. The feedback path, from structured STL back to language, can be made highly precise, and a precise feedback path lets an imprecise forward path achieve precise closed-loop behavior. Experiments on 500 expert-authored requirements and seven LLMs support this view. Back-translated explanations agree with expert judgments in 99.5\% of cases. Closed-loop refinement raises strong models from about 89\% open-loop accuracy to 98.0--99.2\%, and yields gains of over 30 percentage points for weaker models (e.g., 17.6\%$\rightarrow$48.0\%). Ablations show these gains come from the semantic content of the feedback rather than from repeated attempts. An expert audit and a 280-session user study further confirm the reliability of the loop. We also identify a capability threshold above which feedback no longer helps.
Abstract:Signal Temporal Logic (STL) enables rigorous verification and control of cyber-physical systems, but writing correct specifications requires expertise that most requirement holders lack. Large language models can translate natural-language (NL) requirements into STL, yet stronger translators alone approach an accuracy ceiling. We argue that this ceiling stems from how the task is posed: one-shot, open-loop translation is somewhat ill-defined. Natural language is ambiguous, and, more fundamentally, what a person writes may not always be what they intend, so the target specification is not fully contained in the input text. We therefore reformulate NL-to-STL translation as a closed-loop feedback process. Each generated formula is translated back into natural language for the user to check, and natural-language corrections drive revision until the user accepts the specification. Users never read or write formal syntax. This framework rests on an asymmetry familiar from feedback control theory. The forward path, from ambiguous language to formal logic, is hard and error-prone. The feedback path, from structured STL back to language, can be made highly precise, and a precise feedback path lets an imprecise forward path achieve precise closed-loop behavior. Experiments on 500 expert-authored requirements and seven LLMs support this view. Back-translated explanations agree with expert judgments in 99.5\% of cases. Closed-loop refinement raises strong models from about 89\% open-loop accuracy to 98.0--99.2\%, and yields gains of over 30 percentage points for weaker models (e.g., 17.6\%$\rightarrow$48.0\%). Ablations show these gains come from the semantic content of the feedback rather than from repeated attempts. An expert audit and a 280-session user study further confirm the reliability of the loop. We also identify a capability threshold above which feedback no longer helps.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Robotics (cs.RO); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
arXiv:2609.33287 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.33287v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.33287 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 373 words
Related coverage

AXRP Episode 50 - Eli Lifland on AI 2027
LessWrong · Aug 3, 2026
News Archive 2026
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

Presentation: Platform Teams Enabling AI - MCP/Multi-Agentic Tools across Linkedin
InfoQ · Jun 5, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026