Cobblestone: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Automating Formal Verification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, is an effective way of improving software quality, but requires significant effort and expertise. Machine learning can automatically synthesize proofs, but such tools are able to prove only a fraction of desired software properties. We introduce Cobblestone, a divide-and-conquer approach for proof synthesis. Cobblestone uses a large language model (LLM) to generate potential proofs, uses those proofs to break the problem into simpler parts, automatically identifies which of those parts were successfully proven, and iterates on the remaining parts to build a correct proof that is guaranteed to be sound, despite the reliance on unsound LLMs. We evaluate Cobblestone on four benchmarks of open-source Coq projects, controlling for training data leakage. Fully automatically, Cobblestone outperforms state-of-the-art non-LLM tools, and proves many theorems that other LLM-based tools cannot, and on many benchmarks, outperforms them. Each Cobblestone run costs only 1.25 and takes 14.7 minutes, on average. Cobblestone can also be used with external input, from a user or another tool, providing a proof structure or relevant lemmas. Evaluated with such an oracle, Cobblestone proves up to 58% of theorems. Overall, our research shows that tools can make use of partial progress and external input to more effectively automate formal verification.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 88 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Oct 2024.
Builds on
34 of 88 references.
References · 34
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
- 2022Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 1,397
- 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2023Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Modelscited by 873
- 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 414
- 2022Complexity-Based Prompting for Multi-Step Reasoningcited by 387
22 more
- 2023Llemma: An Open Language Model For Mathematicscited by 385
- 2023Navigate through Enigmatic Labyrinth A Survey of Chain of Thought Reasoning: Advances, Frontiers and Futurecited by 184
- 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 123
- 2023Baldur: Whole-Proof Generation and Repair with Large Language Modelscited by 118
- 2023LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing Librariescited by 108
- 2019Learning to Prove Theorems via Interacting with Proof Assistantscited by 107
- 2022Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Proverscited by 97
- 2023An In-Context Learning Agent for Formal Theorem-Provingcited by 78
- 2019Graph Representations for Higher-Order Logic and Theorem Provingcited by 55
- 2024A Survey on Deep Learning for Theorem Provingcited by 55
- 2023Can Large Language Models Transform Natural Language Intent into Formal Method Postconditions?cited by 53
- 2023Magnushammer: A Transformer-Based Approach to Premise Selectioncited by 50
- 2018GamePad: A Learning Environment for Theorem Provingcited by 48
- 2024MUSTARD: Mastering Uniform Synthesis of Theorem and Proof Datacited by 43
- 2023Decomposing the Enigma: Subgoal-based Demonstration Learning for Formal Theorem Provingcited by 37
- 2019Generating Correctness Proofs with Neural Networkscited by 36
- 2019Learning to Reason in Large Theories without Imitationcited by 27
- 2024Proving Theorems Recursivelycited by 25
- 2020The Tactician (extended version): A Seamless, Interactive Tactic Learner and Prover for Coqcited by 23
- 2024Proof Automation with Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2022Passport: Improving Automated Formal Verification Using Identifierscited by 19
- 2024Graph2Tac: Online Representation Learning of Formal Math Conceptscited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 7.
8 papers.
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failurescited by 20
- 2026Agentic Code Reasoningcited by 4
- 2026Certified Program Synthesis with a Multi-Modal Verifiercited by 2
- 2025Clarifying Before Reasoning: A Coq Prover with Structural Contextcited by 1
- 2026Harnessing Code Agents for Automatic Software Verificationcited by 1
- 2026PROMISE: Proof Automation as Structural Imitation of Human Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026On Reasoning-Centric LLM-based Automated Theorem Provingcited by 0
- 2026LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generationcited by 0
- 2026Harnessing Code Agents for Automatic Software Verification7 Jul 2026
- 2026LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation2 May 2026
- 2026On Reasoning-Centric LLM-based Automated Theorem Proving21 Apr 2026
- 2026Certified Program Synthesis with a Multi-Modal Verifier17 Apr 2026
- 2026PROMISE: Proof Automation as Structural Imitation of Human Reasoning7 Apr 2026
- 2026Agentic Code Reasoning2 Mar 2026
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failures5 Feb 2026
- 2025Clarifying Before Reasoning: A Coq Prover with Structural Context3 Jul 2025