CAPRI is presented, a contract-aware repair workflow in which Isabelle checks the proof and an independent checker enforces a machine-readable edit contract, in which Isabelle checks the proof and an independent checker enforces a machine-readable edit contract.
Abstract
We address the use of large language models (LLMs) to help discover Isabelle proofs. An Isabelle build establishes that the submitted theory is accepted, but not that an LLM changed only what the developer authorised. We present CAPRI, a contract-aware repair workflow in which Isabelle checks the proof and an independent checker enforces a machine-readable edit contract. Prompts, proposals, candidate repositories, diagnostics, verdicts, and hashes are retained for audit. We evaluate five workflows on twelve failed proofs from four developments, with three replicates per task and condition, giving 180 runs and 138 valid repairs. Of 144 terminal candidates accepted by Isabelle, six had modified protected text; all arose in iterative workflows that could edit a complete theory. A proof-body-only interface produced 29/36 valid repairs and no contract violations, compared with 31/36 for the corresponding full-theory workflow. One-shot repair produced 22/36, while a later prospectively frozen iterative workflow produced 32/36; these figures compare complete workflows rather than individual mechanisms. A separate post hoc OpenRouter campaign found no improvement in the designated Luna comparisons. A Sol configuration with matched demonstrations produced 33/36 repairs, compared with 29/36 in the frozen OpenAI Responses condition, but the difference was not statistically significant in a one-sided exact McNemar test ($p=0.0625$).
CAPRI, a contract-aware proof-repair tool, is used to govern a reconstruction by combining Isabelle acceptance with an independent check of repository changes against machine-readable edit contracts, and the reconstruction discharged all ten scoped obligations within the original nine-theory structure.
Jim Woodcock, Gabriel Leite, Augusto Sampaio et al.· 0 citations
LLM-based Lean proving systems increasingly organize a proof as a blueprint: a dependency graph of formal statements. We introduce BlueprintRepair, a repair interface that lets a model change this graph through ten schema-checked local operations. An operation names the node it edits, so the target theorem cannot be ch...
This work presents StructureClaw, an artifact-centered workbench in which LLM agents operate through governed engineering skills, typed tools, shared artifact state, and local analysis backends, together with StructureClaw-Bench, an executable benchmark of 150 controlled scenarios spanning standard workflows, interacti...
Sizhong Qin, Yi Gu, Yao Jiang et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The case suggests that explicit failure records, fixtures, port-owned proofs, and validating imports can make agent-assisted systems more auditable and controlled ablations and external replications are needed to test whether such infrastructure causally improves development outcomes.
FLEX is presented, a foundational Constrained Horn Clause (CHC) solver implemented in LEAN, that reduces the trusted base to the kernel alone, and allows using LEAN's entire proof ecosystem to verify low-level systems code, via three contributions.
J. Khan, Petros Markopoulos, Nicolás Lehmann et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
SymCert is presented, a framework implemented in Lean for building verified SMT-based analyses of Cedar policies that provide a verified symbolic compiler and authorizer for reducing policies to SMT formulas, a hierarchy enforcer for ensuring well-formedness of counterexamples, and a counterex-ample extractor for provi...
Emina Torlak· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.