Talk is Cheap, Logic is Hard: Benchmarking LLMs on Post-Condition Formalization
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866918395220328448 |
|---|---|
| author | Prasetya, I. S. W. B. Kifetew, Fitsum Prandi, Davide |
| author_facet | Prasetya, I. S. W. B. Kifetew, Fitsum Prandi, Davide |
| contents | Formal specifications, such as pre- and post-conditions provide a solid basis for performing thorough program verification. However, developers rarely provide such formal specifications, hence if AI could help in constructing them, it would make formal verification possible or at least make automated testing much more effective. This paper presents a study on the ability of LLMs in generating formal FULL pre- and post-conditions of a program, given its natural language description. 24 state-of-the-art LLMs were evaluated on a freshly prepared dataset of 40 tasks. The paper investigates specifications of varying difficulty and discusses a set of more refined performance metrics in addition the general accept@1 performance. It also investigates the impact of using automatically generated tests for validation of the solutions proposed by LLMs. The results of the experiment reveal that, in general LLMs can produce valid pre- and post-conditions based on natural language descriptions of programs. Incorrect solutions from proprietary models are also often near correct. A closer inspection shows that open-source models tend to result in a higher proportion of erroneous results while proprietary models tend to have slightly higher false negative rates. Interestingly, the results also show that augmenting the manually prepared dataset with automatically generated tests leads to the exposure of wrong solutions, which would have otherwise been accepted as correct. In general, LLMs perform better in formalizing pre-conditions than on post-conditions and proprietary models perform better than open ones. However, none of the LLMs were able to correctly formalize all the tasks in our benchmark. Overall, the effectiveness and reliability of LLMs in formalizing pre- and post-conditions could be greatly improved by using a good test suite that checks the correctness of the LLM generated formalizations. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_17193 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Talk is Cheap, Logic is Hard: Benchmarking LLMs on Post-Condition Formalization Prasetya, I. S. W. B. Kifetew, Fitsum Prandi, Davide Software Engineering - D.2.5; D.3.1; D.2.1 Formal specifications, such as pre- and post-conditions provide a solid basis for performing thorough program verification. However, developers rarely provide such formal specifications, hence if AI could help in constructing them, it would make formal verification possible or at least make automated testing much more effective. This paper presents a study on the ability of LLMs in generating formal FULL pre- and post-conditions of a program, given its natural language description. 24 state-of-the-art LLMs were evaluated on a freshly prepared dataset of 40 tasks. The paper investigates specifications of varying difficulty and discusses a set of more refined performance metrics in addition the general accept@1 performance. It also investigates the impact of using automatically generated tests for validation of the solutions proposed by LLMs. The results of the experiment reveal that, in general LLMs can produce valid pre- and post-conditions based on natural language descriptions of programs. Incorrect solutions from proprietary models are also often near correct. A closer inspection shows that open-source models tend to result in a higher proportion of erroneous results while proprietary models tend to have slightly higher false negative rates. Interestingly, the results also show that augmenting the manually prepared dataset with automatically generated tests leads to the exposure of wrong solutions, which would have otherwise been accepted as correct. In general, LLMs perform better in formalizing pre-conditions than on post-conditions and proprietary models perform better than open ones. However, none of the LLMs were able to correctly formalize all the tasks in our benchmark. Overall, the effectiveness and reliability of LLMs in formalizing pre- and post-conditions could be greatly improved by using a good test suite that checks the correctness of the LLM generated formalizations. |
| title | Talk is Cheap, Logic is Hard: Benchmarking LLMs on Post-Condition Formalization |
| topic | Software Engineering - D.2.5; D.3.1; D.2.1 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17193 |