mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TLA+-Bench: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark and Dataset for Natural-Language to TLA Specification Generation

arXiv 2607.23425 ↗First posted 26 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models increasingly write TLA+ formal specifications from natural-language descriptions, but progress is hard to measure: existing resources grade by resemblance to a reference or by whether the output parses, neither of which shows correctness. We present TLA+-Bench, a dataset and benchmark that grades by execution. Every gold specification ships a configuration the TLA+ model checker runs over the full reachable state space, deciding exactly whether the specification holds the properties that configuration names. The dataset holds 403 model-checked gold and 897 parse-only silver specifications from 13 public repositories, subsumes prior TLA+ generation data, and carries four model-written descriptions in two styles from two providers, with difficulty and category labels. Our main finding is about measurement itself: an exact oracle gives not one correctness number but a range. Varying only the grading choices earlier benchmarks leave unstated, on one fixed set of model outputs, the correct rate moves sixfold, from 10.0% to 1.7%; adding the interface-supply choice, where the model is told the configuration's names, widens the range to elevenfold, from 18.7% to 1.7%. We call this range the correctness envelope and measure each of its bounds. The findings inside it are stable. Every model writes valid TLA+ far more often than correct TLA+: the strongest is correct 16% of the time by default and 26% when given the interface names, open models at most 1%, and correctness falls sharply with difficulty.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.

Builds on

18 of 32 references.

References · 18

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  5. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  6. 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
  7. 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 414
  8. 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 242
  9. 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmeticcited by 188
  10. 2023ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematicscited by 180
  11. 2023Clover: Closed-Loop Verifiable Code Generationcited by 62
  12. 2024DafnyBench: A Benchmark for Formal Software Verificationcited by 54
6 more
  1. 2025NL2SQL-BUGs: A Benchmark for Detecting Semantic Errors in NL2SQL Translationcited by 31
  2. 2024VarBench: Robust Language Model Benchmarking Through Dynamic Variable Perturbationcited by 29
  3. 2024Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFastcited by 5
  4. 2025When Names Disappear: Revealing What LLMs Actually Understand About Codecited by 4
  5. 2025OpenClassGen: A Large-Scale Corpus of Real-World Python Classes for LLM Researchcited by 3
  6. 2026Can LLMs Write Correct TLA+ Specifications? Evaluating Natural-Language-to-TLA+ Generationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.