CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 25, 2026

Agentic Proving for Program Verification

arXiv AI Archived May 25, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.23772v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic systems have recently emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics. To assess how far these capabilities extend to program verification, we evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation. Our results show that Claude generates arguably valid specifications for 98.8% of problems (with 81.3% also accepted by CLEVER's isomorphism-ba

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 22 May 2026] Agentic Proving for Program Verification Alessandro Sosso, Akhil Arora, Bas Spitters Agentic systems have recently emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics. To assess how far these capabilities extend to program verification, we evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation. Our results show that Claude generates arguably valid specifications for 98.8% of problems (with 81.3% also accepted by CLEVER's isomorphism-based scoring on the correct portion of the benchmark), certifies implementations against correct ground-truth specifications for 87.5% of problems, and reaches a 98.1% success rate on the end-to-end program generation and verification pipeline over entries with self-consistent premises. Across all stages, Claude further provides high-quality feedback on its own attempts (as confirmed under manual review), identifying underlying causes of failure and lingering bugs in the dataset. These findings highlight a growing mismatch between the difficulty of existing program verification benchmarks and the capabilities of modern agentic provers, and point to the need for more rigorous, bug-resilient evaluation methodologies, and in particular for alternatives to isomorphism-based scoring of generated specifications. More broadly, our results provide empirical evidence that tight compiler-in-the-loop agentic paradigms are currently the most effective approach for foundational program verification. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Programming Languages (cs.PL); Software Engineering (cs.SE) Cite as: arXiv:2605.23772 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.23772v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.23772 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Alessandro Sosso [view email] [v1] Fri, 22 May 2026 15:41:27 UTC (2,400 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs cs.LO cs.PL cs.SE References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 25, 2026
    Archived
    May 25, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗