Proof-Carrying Certificates for LLM Pipelines: A Trust-Boundary Architecture
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a framework for verifying the deterministic structured computations surrounding a large language model rather than the model itself, extending a Lean 4 trust-boundary architecture to the generic interfaces of modern LLM pipelines. Certificate validity is a Lean 4 kernel type-check plus a sorry-free transitive axiom audit against the trusted set {propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound}; other assumptions are declared and partitioned by tier (mathematical placeholders, cryptographic assumptions, ML/human oracles). The technical contribution comprises three local certificate families and two operators. The families are conflict-aware bilattice grounding (with an emission-gate soundness lemma), embedding sensitivity and paraphrase stability, and Hoare-style agent action. The operators are a Maximal Certifiable Residue, which turns abstention into the maximum-weight certifiable residue with audit-logged dropped claims, and a Compositional Stability theorem, which yields a closed-form pipeline-wide perturbation budget from per-layer gains and margins. The three families plus a Universal Assurance Card consolidator form the per-call deliverable for high-stakes deployments: patent and legal retrieval, regulated finance, clinical decision support, and agentic systems with irreversible side effects. A compiled Lean 4 reference artifact (Lean v4.30.0-rc2, Mathlib) covers all 22 certificate types, with 17 of 46 kernel-audited declarations axiom-free, the rest depending only on the trusted set and declared assumptions, and zero uses of sorryAx or Lean.ofReduceBool. The three families are empirically tested through four registered pilots: bilattice grounding on adversarially perturbed HotpotQA, embedding sensitivity in short- and long-form settings, and Hoare-style agent action on a filesystem sandbox with adversarial prompt injection.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ToolGate: Contract-Grounded and Verified Tool Execution for LLMs
- 2026Grading the Graders: Verification Autonomy Levels (L0-L5) for LLM Reasoning
- 2025Proof-Carrying Numbers (PCN): A Protocol for Trustworthy Numeric Answers from LLMs via Claim Verification
- 2026VERGE: Formal Refinement and Guidance Engine for Verifiable LLM Reasoning
- 2026Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States
- 2026Trust propagation and structural containment in Multi-agent LLM pipelines
- 2026Analyzing the Narration Gap in LLM-Solver Loops
- 2026SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?