AI paper index

P$^{3}$: Joint Program-and-Proof Planning for Verified Code Generation

2026-08-10 · arXiv: 2608.09277

One-line summary

An AI research paper on P$^{3}$: Joint Program-and-Proof Planning for Verified Code Generation.

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充:本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction. The de facto workflow decouples the two halves of the problem: first synthesize a program, then attempt to prove it correct. We observe that this sequential pipeline can be both ineffective and inefficient in practice. A program generated without anticipating its proof can be subtly incorrect or structurally difficult to verify, forcing the LLM into brittle repair loops that alternate between patching the code and patching the proof. Inspired by Dijkstra's view that a program and its correctness argument should be developed hand in hand, we propose $P^3$, an LLM-based agentic workflow that first derives a unified program-and-proof plan from the specification, then elaborates the implementation and proof scaffold under this shared plan. To evaluate verified code generation in realistic settings, we further introduce Lean4Commit0, a repository-derived, library-level benchmark built by extracting core APIs from real-world software repositories and translating their requirements, including relational specifications across APIs, into Lean tasks. Using four frontier LLM backends, we evaluate $P^3$ on Verina, AlgoVeri, and our Lean4Commit0 benchmark, where it achieves the highest solve rate in every benchmark--model setting. Compared with the stronger baseline, it improves solve rates by 4.6--11.2 percentage points and reduces per-task API cost by up to roughly 40\% and wall-clock time by up to roughly 37\% on the difficult subset of each benchmark. A targeted ablation further shows gains of 3.3--8.3 points over implementation-only planning, isolating the benefit of planning the program and proof jointly.

5.0Engineering value
7.0Research novelty
4.0Business relevance

Links and sources

Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?

aipentium can prepare a custom AI literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.

Request B2B AI research

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this paper.
Login or register to leave a comment