developer tools
The Proof Failed, but the Specification Might Not Have
Coins evaluates generated Rocq specifications on trusted concrete cases so proof difficulty is less easily mistaken for specification quality.
Summary
Coins evaluates generated Rocq specifications on trusted concrete cases so proof difficulty is less easily mistaken for specification quality.
Formal-specification benchmarks often require proving an implementation conforms or showing two specifications are semantically equivalent, which can turn a hard proof into an ambiguous model failure. Coins instead instantiates candidate specifications on curated HumanEval cases and generates concrete proof obligations whose successful discharge is strong evidence. The large-scale study finds specification synthesis remains difficult and model scaling alone does not resolve the measurement problem. The framework improves evaluation fidelity; it does not certify arbitrary generated specifications.
Why it matters
Coins evaluates generated Rocq specifications on trusted concrete cases so proof difficulty is less easily mistaken for specification quality.
Limits and context
- The large-scale study finds specification synthesis remains difficult and model scaling alone does not resolve the measurement problem.
- The framework improves evaluation fidelity; it does not certify arbitrary generated specifications.
Key claims
Coins evaluates generated Rocq specifications on trusted concrete cases so proof difficulty is less easily mistaken for specification quality.
Qualification: The large-scale study finds specification synthesis remains difficult and model scaling alone does not resolve the measurement problem.
Evidence: source-2026-08-14-013
Sources
- arXiv preprint 2608.13077arXiv · primary research
Corrections
No corrections have been recorded for this story.