This paper presents CircuitProver, an agentic Lean 4-based verification framework supporting proof-accumulation and parameterized verification, and introduces the first benchmark suite for evaluating agentic hardware theorem proving, covering diverse parameterized hardware designs, specifications, proof tasks, and evaluation metrics.
Abstract
Modern integrated circuits (ICs) are becoming increasingly complex, making functional verification a major bottleneck. The dominant hardware formal verification methodology, model checking, verifies each design instance separately and exposes only pass/fail results, so the reasoning behind a proof stays locked inside solver heuristics and is repeatedly reconstructed across related designs. Interactive theorem proving instead yields explicit, reusable proof artifacts, but applying it to hardware remains largely manual, demanding expert effort for formalization, invariant discovery, and proof development. In this paper, we present CircuitProver, an agentic Lean 4-based verification framework supporting proof-accumulation and parameterized verification. CircuitProver automatically translates parameterized hardware designs and their natural language specifications into executable Lean 4 models. It then iteratively constructs machine-checked proofs through Lean feedback to establish that the hardware code complies with the specification. The proving traces and verified theorems are distilled into reusable libraries, where proving strategies guide future agent reasoning and verified lemmas support formal proof reuse across related hardware verification tasks. We further introduce the first benchmark suite for evaluating agentic hardware theorem proving, covering diverse parameterized hardware designs, specifications, proof tasks, and evaluation metrics. Across 63 tasks, CircuitProver successfully proves all benchmarks, while a vanilla agent solves 92.1% of them and requires twice as many proof rounds on average. Ablation studies show that accumulated proof knowledge reduces redundant proof construction across related verification tasks, reducing proof length by 16.3% and verification time by 23.2%.
Program verification establishes software correctness through machine-checkable proofs constructed in theorem provers. It's a guarantee especially valuable for code generated by large language models (LLMs), which is fluent but carries no assurance of correctness. Almost all existing provers, however, pursue pass rates...
Shuang-Jie Yao, Nikolaus Holzer, Mark Santolucito et al.· 0 citations
Distributed systems are hard to implement correctly, and subtle bugs can go undetected using traditional testing. Formal verification offers an alternative for proving the correctness of complex distributed systems. Despite previous efforts to automate and facilitate formal verification, it is still hard to integrate f...
Seyed Armin Vakil Ghahani, M. Kapritsos· 0 citations
Agentic-IC3 is presented, built on Pono's word-level model-checking infrastructure, which integrates a language-model agent into IC3 to guide semantic proof search using register-transfer-level (RTL) design information.
Yu-Wei Fan, SooHyuk Cho, Aarti Gupta et al.· 0 citations
Neuro-formal verification is introduced, which harnesses that automation for developers of mainstream programming languages and returns a Dafny proof of correctness or of a bug on 57% of the entries at 92% precision, and a CBMC counterexample for 63% of the buggy programs at 90% precision.
Formal verification of Rust programs with Verus provides strong correctness guarantees, but developing the auxiliary specifications and proofs still requires considerable manual effort. Existing LLM-based proof-synthesis agents can automate part of this process, yet their effectiveness on non-trivial tasks is often lim...
Yu-Cheng Zhang, Cheng Wen, Jia-Lun Cao et al.· Proceedings of the 41st IEEE...· 0 citations
This work proposes a proof calculus that captures the decision procedure for finite field reasoning employed by the SMT solver CVC 5 and instrumenting the solver to generate proofs within this calculus, and introduces an extension of the Practical Algebraic Calculus that mirrors the proposed system.
Pedro Saccomani, Abdalrhman Mohamed, Elizaveta Pertseva et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.