Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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

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 2508.18587 v1 pith:6AWHMBXO submitted 2025-08-26 cs.PL cs.AI

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

classification cs.PL cs.AI
keywords llmsproofsperformproofverificationassistantscaseeffectiveness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can potentially help with verification using proof assistants by automating proofs. However, it is unclear how effective LLMs are in this task. In this paper, we perform a case study based on two mature Rocq projects: the hs-to-coq tool and Verdi. We evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in generating proofs by both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our study finds that: (1) external dependencies and context in the same source file can significantly help proof generation; (2) LLMs perform great on small proofs but can also generate large proofs; (3) LLMs perform differently on different verification projects; and (4) LLMs can generate concise and smart proofs, apply classical techniques to new definitions, but can also make odd mistakes.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Agentic Proving for Program Verification

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Agentic Claude reaches 98.8% valid specs, 87.5% implementation certification, and 98.1% end-to-end success on CLEVER, revealing a mismatch between benchmark difficulty and current prover performance.