← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.13627 · v1
Curriculum proof repair with learned counterexamples
首次提交 2026-11-10 14:14
版本更新 2026-11-10 14:14
雷达观测 2026-11-11 11:04
摘要
Language models (LMs) have substantially lowered the barrier to applying formal verification for building reliable and secure software. Existing approaches commonly follow the verifier-in-the-loop paradigm, but the verifier often provides only coarse, binary pass/fail feedback, which offers little actionable signal on how the proof should be repaired. Recent work shows that counterexamples provide more actionable feedback by grounding proof failures in concrete program states, but generating useful ones at inference time requires costly iterative refinement. We present TopoVerus, an LM-based framework for Verus proof repair that internalizes counterexample-guided diagnosis as a model capability, producing useful counterexamples in a single pass. Our key insight is to train counterexample generation not as a standalone validation task, but as a data-driven diagnostic objective: a counterexample is useful when conditioning on it helps the model produce a safe, verifier-passing proof. Given a failed Verus proof and verifier error, TopoVerus generates a structured source-level counterexample, repair rationale, and repaired proof in one trajectory, optimized with reinforcement learning from Verus feedback and a proof-code safety gate. To guide the order of invariant repairs, TopoVerus introduces a curriculum with a topological graph reward based on invariant dependencies derived from inductiveness tests, which encourages counterexample generation to follow the same topological order. Across seven Verus benchmarks with 471 problems, TopoVerus achieves 61.6%/72.2% weighted-average Safe-Pass@1/Safe-Pass@3, outperforming the strongest baseline, Claude Sonnet 4.5, by 5.7/6.3 points. We also show that TopoVerus's learned counterexamples can directly augment the reasoning of existing LM-based proof repair approaches, improving their success rate by 64.3% compared to chain-of-thought diagnostics.
作者备注：Accepted at NeurIPS 2026. 28 pages
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-10 14:14 · 最新观测版本
Curriculum proof repair with learned counterexamples
Language models (LMs) have substantially lowered the barrier to applying formal verification for building reliable and secure software. Existing approaches commonly follow the verifier-in-the-loop paradigm, but the verifier often provides only coarse, binary pass/fail feedback, which offers little actionable signal on how the proof should be repaired. Recent work shows that counterexamples provide more actionable feedback by grounding proof failures in concrete program states, but generating useful ones at inference time requires costly iterative refinement. We present TopoVerus, an LM-based framework for Verus proof repair that internalizes counterexample-guided diagnosis as a model capability, producing useful counterexamples in a single pass. Our key insight is to train counterexample generation not as a standalone validation task, but as a data-driven diagnostic objective: a counterexample is useful when conditioning on it helps the model produce a safe, verifier-passing proof. Given a failed Verus proof and verifier error, TopoVerus generates a structured source-level counterexample, repair rationale, and repaired proof in one trajectory, optimized with reinforcement learning from Verus feedback and a proof-code safety gate. To guide the order of invariant repairs, TopoVerus introduces a curriculum with a topological graph reward based on invariant dependencies derived from inductiveness tests, which encourages counterexample generation to follow the same topological order. Across seven Verus benchmarks with 471 problems, TopoVerus achieves 61.6%/72.2% weighted-average Safe-Pass@1/Safe-Pass@3, outperforming the strongest baseline, Claude Sonnet 4.5, by 5.7/6.3 points. We also show that TopoVerus's learned counterexamples can directly augment the reasoning of existing LM-based proof repair approaches, improving their success rate by 64.3% compared to chain-of-thought diagnostics.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗