Harnessing Code Agents for Automatic Software Verification
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Educational agents and math problem solving
Abstract (arXiv)
Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) promise to generate these proofs automatically, yet existing approaches wire a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it (retrieving premises and predicting tactics one step at a time, or splitting goals by divide-and-conquer), and still prove only a fraction of their target theorems. We show that imposing such a strategy is unnecessary and limiting. Handing the whole lemma to a general LLM code agent (for example, Claude Code), free to choose its own approach, and wrapping it in a verification harness is both simpler and more effective, achieving full coverage: every targeted lemma proved, with no failures and no Coq expert intervention. The agent writes the proofs under feedback and hard constraints from the harness that keep each one sound (accepted only when the prover's kernel closes it), complete (no obligation left unproved or silently dropped), and terminating (no divergent tactics). We evaluate this harness plus code agent along three dimensions. (1) Core logic: on Iris, the state-of-the-art separation logic for concurrent and memory-manipulating programs, Aria proves all 4,257 lemmas of the four core modules and the 217 lemmas verifying Rust's standard libraries built on it, fully automatically. (2) Comparison with prior LLM provers: on reglang, where prior provers manage barely one in eight, Aria proves all 318. (3) Generality: on iris-lean, the unfinished Lean 4 port of Iris, it proves 72 not-yet-ported lemmas, showing the approach is not specific to Coq. A state-of-the-art model (Claude Opus 4.7) can write proofs for verified software development fully and automatically.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Educational agents and math problem solving, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2026.
Builds on
22 of 63 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 21
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 414
- 2020Generative Language Modeling for Automated Theorem Provingcited by 379
- 2022Draft, Sketch, and Prove: Guiding Formal Theorem Provers with Informal Proofscited by 278
- 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repaircited by 225
- 2024DeepSeek-Prover: Advancing Theorem Proving in LLMs through Large-Scale Synthetic Datacited by 225
- 2022HyperTree Proof Search for Neural Theorem Provingcited by 192
- 2023Baldur: Whole-Proof Generation and Repair with Large Language Modelscited by 118
- 2019Learning to Prove Theorems via Interacting with Proof Assistantscited by 107
- 2022Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Proverscited by 97
- 2019Generating Correctness Proofs with Neural Networkscited by 36
- 2024Rango: Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Proving for Automated Software Verificationcited by 25
9 more
- 2020The Tactician (extended version): A Seamless, Interactive Tactic Learner and Prover for Coqcited by 23
- 2024Proof Automation with Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2024Towards Neural Synthesis for SMT-Assisted Proof-Oriented Programmingcited by 19
- 2024Graph2Tac: Online Representation Learning of Formal Math Conceptscited by 15
- 2024Cobblestone: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Automating Formal Verificationcited by 8
- 2023Grove: a Separation-Logic Library for Verifying Distributed Systems (Extended Version)cited by 4
- 2019Compositional Non-Interference for Fine-Grained Concurrent Programscited by 1
- 2021Trillium: Higher-Order Concurrent and Distributed Separation Logic for Intensional Refinementcited by 1
- 2025Cryptis: Cryptographic Reasoning in Separation Logiccited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Automated Lemma Discovery in Agentic Program Verification
- 2026Automating Formal Verification with Agent-Guided Tree Search
- 2026SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?
- 2026WybeCoder: Verified Imperative Code Generation
- 2026P3: Joint Program-and-Proof Planning for Verified Code Generation
- 2025Agentic Verification of Software Systems
- 2026AoA: Theorem Proving Agent over Abstract Syntax Tree of Redesigned Language
- 2026Neuro-Formal Verification: Agentic Language-Agnostic Formal Program Reasoning