Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.08335

Plan with Code: Comparing approaches for robust NL to DSL generation

Nastaran Bassamzadeh·Chhaya Methani
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Planning in code is considered a more reliable approach for many orchestration tasks. This is because code is more tractable than steps generated via Natural Language and make it easy to support more complex sequences by abstracting deterministic logic into functions. It also allows spotting issues with incorrect function names with the help of parsing checks that can be run on code. Progress in Code Generation methodologies, however, remains limited to general-purpose languages like C, C++, and Python. LLMs continue to face challenges with custom function names in Domain Specific Languages or DSLs, leading to higher hallucination rates and syntax errors. This is more common for custom function names, that are typically part of the plan. Moreover, keeping LLMs up-to-date with newer function names is an issue. This poses a challenge for scenarios like task planning over a large number of APIs, since the plan is represented as a DSL having custom API names. In this paper, we focus on workflow automation in RPA (Robotic Process Automation) domain as a special case of task planning. We present optimizations for using Retrieval Augmented Generation (or RAG) with LLMs for DSL generation along with an ablation study comparing these strategies with a fine-tuned model. Our results showed that the fine-tuned model scored the best on code similarity metric. However, with our optimizations, RAG approach is able to match the quality for in-domain API names in the test set. Additionally, it offers significant advantage for out-of-domain or unseen API names, outperforming Fine-Tuned model on similarity metric by 7 pts.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nastaran Bassamzadeh, Chhaya Methani. 2024-08-15. Plan with Code: Comparing approaches for robust NL to DSL generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08335

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLM-Based Repair of Static Nullability Errors

Modern Java projects increasingly adopt static analysis tools that prevent null-pointer exceptions by treating nullness as a type property. However, integrating such tools into large, existing codebases remains a significant challenge. While annotation inference can eliminate many errors automatically, a subset of residual errors $-$ typically a mix of real bugs and false positives $-$ often persists and can only be resolved via code changes. Manually addressing these errors is tedious and error-prone. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path toward automating these repairs, but naively prompted LLMs often generate incorrect, contextually inappropriate edits. We present NullRepair, a system that integrates LLMs into a structured workflow for resolving the errors from a nullability checker. NullRepair's decision process follows a flowchart derived from manual analysis of 200 real-world errors. It leverages static analysis to identify safe and unsafe usage regions of symbols, using error-free usage examples to contextualize model prompts. Patches are generated through an iterative interaction with the LLM that incorporates project-wide context and decision logic. Our evaluation on 12 real-world Java projects shows that NullRepair resolves 63% of the 1,119 nullability errors that remain after applying a state-of-the-art annotation inference technique. Unlike two baselines (single-shot prompt and mini-SWE-agent), NullRepair also largely preserves program semantics, with all unit tests passing in 10/12 projects after applying every edit proposed by NullRepair, and 98% or more tests passing in the remaining two projects.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Metamodel-Guided Model Generation with Layered Constraints

Large language models (LLMs) enable natural-language interaction in engineering modeling, but generated models may violate structural constraints, domain rules, or task requirements. We propose a metamodel-guided model generation method that coordinates generation-time constraints and post-generation validation. The method transforms metamodel information, uses its terminology to guide structured constraint extraction from specifications, and links constraints to metamodel elements while recording their sources in an Integrated Constraint Model (ICM). For each task, relevant constraints are bound to concrete objects, values, and references. The generation-time constraint layer (L1) restricts candidate content. The post-generation validation layer (L2) checks constructed models and serialized artifacts, and task acceptance checks retain the original requirements throughout repair. Deterministic procedures construct and serialize models, while LLMs propose candidate content and repairs. Validation uses existing domain tools and checkers written by humans with LLM assistance. Experiments cover AUTOSAR, railway models, and structured decisions in private international law. All 60 AUTOSAR generation runs passed acceptance within the declared task scope, and all 255 resulting ARXML files passed XSD validation. In a separate controlled AUTOSAR repair experiment, all 85 core fault units and 15 prespecified substitute units were restored within one repair round. A local AUTOSAR experiment recorded interventions during stepwise generation. The results support coordinating generation constraints, domain checks, and task acceptance to construct models and guide bounded repair.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

VeriSoftBench: Repository-Scale Formal Verification Benchmarks for Lean

Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-based proof automation are drawn from mathematics in the Mathlib ecosystem, whereas proofs in software verification are developed inside definition-rich codebases with substantial project-specific libraries. We introduce VeriSoftBench, a benchmark of 500 Lean 4 proof obligations drawn from open-source formal-methods developments and packaged to preserve realistic repository context and cross-file dependencies. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized provers yields three observations. First, provers tuned for Mathlib-style mathematics transfer poorly to this repository-centric setting. Second, success is strongly correlated with transitive repository dependence: tasks whose proofs draw on large, multi-hop dependency closures are less likely to be solved. Third, providing curated context restricted to a proof's dependency closure improves performance relative to exposing the full repository, but nevertheless leaves substantial room for improvement. Our benchmark and evaluation suite are released at https://github.com/utopia-group/VeriSoftBench.

cs.SE↗