FVRuleLearner: Operator-Level Reasoning Tree (Op-Tree)-Based Rules Learning for Formal Verification
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
The remarkable reasoning and code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have recently motivated increasing interest in automating formal verification (FV), a process that ensures hardware correctness through mathematically precise assertions but remains highly labor-intensive, particularly through the translation of natural language into SystemVerilog Assertions (NL-to-SVA). However, LLMs still struggle with SVA generation due to limited training data and the intrinsic complexity of FV operators. Consequently, a more efficient and robust methodology for ensuring correct SVA operator selection is essential for producing functionally correct assertions. To address these challenges, we introduce FVRuleLearner, an Operator-Level Rule (Op-Rule) learning framework built on a novel Operator Reasoning Tree (Op-Tree), which models SVA generation as structured, interpretable reasoning. FVRuleLearner operates in two complementary phases: (1) Training: it constructs Op-Tree that decomposes NL-to-SVA alignment into fine-grained, operator-aware questions, combining reasoning paths that lead to correct assertions; and (2) Testing: it performs operator-aligned retrieval to fetch relevant reasoning traces from the learned Op-Tree and generate new rules for unseen specifications. In the comprehensive studies, the proposed FVRuleLearner outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline by 3.95% in syntax correctness and by 31.17% in functional correctness on average. Moreover, FVRuleLearner successfully reduces an average of 70.33% of SVA functional failures across diverse operator categories through a functional taxonomy analysis, showing the effectiveness of applying learned Op-Tree to the Op-Rule generations for unseen NL-to-SVA tasks. These results establish FVRuleLearner as a new paradigm for domain-specific reasoning and rule learning in formal verification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 33 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.
Builds on
33 of 62 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 32
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed-Source Models in Code Intelligencecited by 325
- 2024TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Textcited by 250
- 2023Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategiescited by 236
- 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
- 2023ChipNeMo: Domain-Adapted LLMs for Chip Designcited by 168
- 2024Recursive Introspection: Teaching Language Model Agents How to Self-Improvecited by 162
- 2024SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agentscited by 129
- 2024Symbolic Learning Enables Self-Evolving Agentscited by 104
- 2023RTLFixer: Automatically Fixing RTL Syntax Errors with Large Language Modelscited by 98
- 2024Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 49
20 more
- 2024In-Context Principle Learning from Mistakescited by 42
- 2024LeDex: Training LLMs to Better Self-Debug and Explain Codecited by 39
- 2024Towards LLM-Powered Verilog RTL Assistant: Self-Verification and Self-Correctioncited by 39
- 2024SOEN-101: Code Generation by Emulating Software Process Models Using Large Language Model Agentscited by 34
- 2023(Security) Assertions by Large Language Modelscited by 31
- 2024AssertLLM: Generating and Evaluating Hardware Verification Assertions from Design Specifications via Multi-LLMscited by 30
- 2024Towards Understanding the Characteristics of Code Generation Errors Made by Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2024ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repaircited by 22
- 2024AssertionBench: A Benchmark to Evaluate Large-Language Models for Assertion Generationcited by 16
- 2024ChIRAAG: ChatGPT Informed Rapid and Automated Assertion Generationcited by 15
- 2024Empowering Large Language Models to Set up a Knowledge Retrieval Indexer via Self-Learningcited by 13
- 2024SQLFixAgent: Towards Semantic-Accurate Text-to-SQL Parsing via Consistency-Enhanced Multi-Agent Collaborationcited by 10
- 2024Large Language Model (LLM) for Standard Cell Layout Design Optimizationcited by 9
- 2024Collaborative Evolving Strategy for Automatic Data-Centric Developmentcited by 6
- 2024Retrieved In-Context Principles from Previous Mistakescited by 5
- 2025Hybrid-NL2SVA: Integrating RAG and Finetuning for LLM-based NL2SVAcited by 5
- 2024Beyond Code Generation: Assessing Code LLM Maturity with Postconditionscited by 4
- 2024Learning-From-Mistakes Prompting for Indigenous Language Translationcited by 2
- 2025SchemaCoder: Automatic Log Schema Extraction Coder with Residual Q-Tree Boostingcited by 2
- 2024Effective Large Language Model Debugging with Best-first Tree Searchcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification
- 2025FOL-Traces: Verified First-Order Logic Reasoning Traces at Scale
- 2025Can Large Language Models Learn Formal Logic? A Data-Driven Training and Evaluation Framework
- 2026Automating Formal Verification with Agent-Guided Tree Search
- 2025Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation
- 2025SLR: Automated Synthesis for Scalable Logical Reasoning
- 2026A Learning Method for Symbolic Systems Using Large Language Models ↗
- 2026Automating Formal Verification with Reinforcement Learning and Recursive Inference