TLA+-Bench: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark and Dataset for Natural-Language to TLA Specification Generation
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
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
- 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 414
- 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 242
- 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmeticcited by 188
- 2023ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematicscited by 180
- 2023Clover: Closed-Loop Verifiable Code Generationcited by 62
- 2024DafnyBench: A Benchmark for Formal Software Verificationcited by 54
6 more
- 2025NL2SQL-BUGs: A Benchmark for Detecting Semantic Errors in NL2SQL Translationcited by 31
- 2024VarBench: Robust Language Model Benchmarking Through Dynamic Variable Perturbationcited by 29
- 2024Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFastcited by 5
- 2025When Names Disappear: Revealing What LLMs Actually Understand About Codecited by 4
- 2025OpenClassGen: A Large-Scale Corpus of Real-World Python Classes for LLM Researchcited by 3
- 2026Can LLMs Write Correct TLA+ Specifications? Evaluating Natural-Language-to-TLA+ Generationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.