Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

miniCodeProps: a Minimal Benchmark for Proving Code Properties

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.11915 v2 pith:2E2QP6PB submitted 2024-06-16 cs.SE cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.LG
keywords codeminicodepropsproofspecificationsbenchmarkpropertiesprovingtheorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

AI agents have shown initial promise in automating mathematical theorem proving in proof assistants such as Lean. The same proof assistants can be used to verify the correctness of code by pairing code with specifications and proofs that the specifications hold. Automating the writing of code, specifications, and proofs could lower the cost of verification, or, ambitiously, enable an AI agent to output safe, provably correct code. However, it remains unclear whether current neural theorem provers can automatically verify even relatively simple programs. We present miniCodeProps, a benchmark of 201 program specifications in the Lean proof assistant, aimed at the subproblem of automatically generating a proof for a provided program and specification. miniCodeProps contains specifications about simple, self-contained programs (e.g., lists, natural numbers, binary trees) with varied proof difficulty. Despite its simplicity, miniCodeProps is sufficient to break current LLM-based provers, with state-of-the-art methods showing promise on the easy properties in miniCodeProps, yet failing to prove nearly all of the medium and hard properties. We publicly release miniCodeProps as a benchmark for furthering automated theorem proving in the context of formally verified code.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Vero: Can AI Agents Build Formally Verified Software Repositories?

    cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Vero is the first repository-level benchmark for joint implementation and proof synthesis in Lean 4, and the best tested agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances.

  2. A Case Study on the Effectiveness of LLMs in Verification with Proof Assistants

    cs.PL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In an ablation across five LLMs and two Rocq projects, informed prompts with dependencies and in-file context produced the highest proof success (up to 52% of hs-to-coq theorems), and success fell sharply without context.

  3. AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    AlphaVerus bootstraps a Llama-70B model to generate Rust code that passes the Verus verifier by iteratively translating Dafny programs and refining candidates with tree search.

  4. Formal Mathematical Reasoning: A New Frontier in AI

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Machine-checkable formal proof should become the backbone of AI mathematics, and a five-task, five-level capability roadmap can measure progress toward that goal.

Pith tools