analiza aiqbench
This research addresses a critical gap in AI-assisted software development by proposing a holistic evaluation framework for formal specification generation using LLMs. The study demonstrates that relying solely on output correctness metrics is insufficient, as models can generate mathematically valid specifications that fail to capture user intent or handle input constraints properly. By integrating behavioral adequacy and reference similarity into the assessment pipeline, this work provides essential benchmarks for improving the reliability of agentic workflows in verifiable code generation.
Beyond Type-checking: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Formal Specification Generation
arXiv:2610.10604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When generating verifiable code, natural language requirements are mapped to machine checked code using LLMs and agentic workflows. A crucial component of this pipeline is specification generation (SpecGen), which produces a formal contract against which an agent can prove implementation correctness. Proof generation can obtain deterministic feedback from a theorem prover, but SpecGen lacks a definitive check that a generated specification captures the user's intent. A checked proof can therefore establish correctness against a specification that misrepresents the intended behaviour. We take a step towards holistic SpecGen evaluation with a unified dataset assembled from $350$ existing Lean tasks, including $189$ from VERINA and $161$ from CLEVER, and a framework covering formal validity, reference similarity and equivalence, and behavioural adequacy. We distinguish acceptance of required inputs from acceptance of valid outputs and rejection of invalid outputs, while making each metric's evidence scope explicit. Across four SpecGen configurations, restricting the generalized tree edit distance (GTED) comparison, a reference similarity measure, to $32$ jointly measurable VERINA tasks changes the VERINA configuration's position from second to fourth in mean similarity, showing the importance of measurement coverage. In an authored control, a specification achieves $100\%$ positive test recall and negative test rejection while accepting $0\%$ of required inputs. This demonstrates that perfect postcondition scores can miss an unusable input contract, motivating separate feedback on input coverage and output constraints.
Abstract:When generating verifiable code, natural language requirements are mapped to machine checked code using LLMs and agentic workflows. A crucial component of this pipeline is specification generation (SpecGen), which produces a formal contract against which an agent can prove implementation correctness. Proof generation can obtain deterministic feedback from a theorem prover, but SpecGen lacks a definitive check that a generated specification captures the user's intent. A checked proof can therefore establish correctness against a specification that misrepresents the intended behaviour. We take a step towards holistic SpecGen evaluation with a unified dataset assembled from $350$ existing Lean tasks, including $189$ from VERINA and $161$ from CLEVER, and a framework covering formal validity, reference similarity and equivalence, and behavioural adequacy. We distinguish acceptance of required inputs from acceptance of valid outputs and rejection of invalid outputs, while making each metric's evidence scope explicit. Across four SpecGen configurations, restricting the generalized tree edit distance (GTED) comparison, a reference similarity measure, to $32$ jointly measurable VERINA tasks changes the VERINA configuration's position from second to fourth in mean similarity, showing the importance of measurement coverage. In an authored control, a specification achieves $100\%$ positive test recall and negative test rejection while accepting $0\%$ of required inputs. This demonstrates that perfect postcondition scores can miss an unusable input contract, motivating separate feedback on input coverage and output constraints.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.10604 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2610.10604v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10604 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 321 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

JudgmentBench: Comparing Rubric and Preference Evaluation for Quality Assessment
Snorkel AI Blog · 18 iun. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 3 oct. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026