Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.21434

Agentic Model Checking

Youcheng Sun·Jiawen Liu·Daniel Kroening·Jason Xue
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Verifying LLM-generated systems code is hard: bugs are prevalent, formal specifications are missing, and safety contracts are encoded implicitly at call sites rather than enforced at function boundaries. We propose agentic model checking, a paradigm that couples LLM agents with a bounded model checking backend under the principle agents propose, solvers verify: agents handle tasks requiring semantic judgment (spec inference, check selection, counterexample classification, refinement proposal) while BMC discharges every soundness-relevant decision. The paradigm rests on three commitments. Specifications are inferred top-down from caller context in a restricted DSL that translates deterministically into the backend's assume/assert primitives, with optional functional-correctness clauses lifting verification from panic-freeness to behavioural faithfulness. Verification is compositional: each function is checked in isolation against its spec with callees replaced by postcondition-constrained stubs, so per-query cost scales with a single function's state space and refinements propagate automatically to callers. Counterexamples are not bug reports: they pass through a validation pipeline (reachability, callee feasibility, dynamic replay, realism audit) that distinguishes active in-tree crashes from latent public-API failures, while modelling artifacts drive a refinement loop rather than being suppressed. We instantiate the approach in BMC-Agent and evaluate it on LLM-generated kernel and compiler code in C and Rust alongside mature OSS-Fuzz-hardened libraries, confirming real defects, producing bounded clean verifications on heavily-fuzzed surfaces, and establishing functional equivalence on selected algorithmic functions.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Youcheng Sun, Jiawen Liu, Daniel Kroening, Jason Xue. 2026-05-20. Agentic Model Checking. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21434

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

XScientist: A Git-Like Research Protocol for Long-Running Autonomous Scientific Discovery

Autonomous research systems can generate plausible papers while losing the decisions, failed branches, and evidence needed to inspect or continue the work. We present XScientist, a local-first, git-like protocol that treats research state, rather than a manuscript, as the unit of continuation. Hypotheses, experiment attempts, observations, claims, reviews, and handoffs are represented as typed, content-addressed objects in an exploration graph. Immutable checkpoints, explicit negative outcomes, claim-evidence closure, replay boundaries, and authority-aware gates make each transition inspectable without treating a passing integrity check as scientific truth. The protocol exports a portable Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) that another agent or human can inspect, fork, verify, and extend. A reference implementation integrates planning, execution, review, repair, and supervised long-running operation while preserving provenance across these stages. We evaluate the protocol with controlled artifact-integrity workloads and matched external task pilots, keeping native task performance separate from evidence and audit claims. The result is an interoperability and accountability layer for long-running autonomous science, with explicit boundaries where human judgment and independent evaluation remain necessary.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

AutoSQL: Extracting SQL Templates from Imperative ORM Code in Large-Scale Repositories

Suboptimal SQL queries can significantly degrade the performance of cloud systems, motivating the extraction and auditing of SQL statements before deployment. However, Go ORM frameworks construct SQL imperatively through scattered method-call sequences, making it difficult to statically recover the resulting SQL templates. We present AutoSQL, a system that reconstructs SQL templates from Go ORM code. AutoSQL constructs a Code Index, a directed graph that captures structural dependencies between functions, types, and global variables as navigable edges. It then traces upstream call chains from ORM invocation sites to identify database-interacting functions as entry points. For each entry point, an LLM agent traverses the Code Index to collect code slices that influence SQL generation, switching to pattern-based search when the graph cannot resolve a retrieval goal. We call this strategy Hybrid Context Retrieval. Once sufficient context is collected, the agent synthesizes SQL templates. Evaluation on a benchmark of 579 test-covered entry points and 1,186 runtime-traced SQL statements from five large-scale Go repositories shows that AutoSQL achieves 68.04% to 72.18% recall, exceeding the static reachability baseline by 11.80% to 15.94% and outperforming existing methods by 8.52% to 21.50%.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

The Vocabulary of Flaky Tests in Swift

Flaky tests produce non-deterministic outcomes without code change, eroding CI confidence and delaying deliveries. While vocabulary-based machine learning prediction has proven effective for Java and JavaScript, no study has evaluated it for Swift, a language whose testing style is dominated by UI and asynchronous code. We collect 91 flaky and 22,349 stable tests from 15 open-source Swift projects via re-execution and commit-history mining, then train five classifiers (Random Forest, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, SVM, KNN) on TF-IDF unigram+bigram features under stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Random Forest achieves the best performance (Precision = 0.92, F1 = 0.86, AUC = 0.95) and substantially outperforms trivial baselines, among them a vocabulary-threshold rule applied to the most informative tokens, confirming a genuine discriminative signal (MCC = 0.75 vs. 0.08 for the best baseline). Information-gain analysis reveals two complementary signal types. Flakiness markers appear predominantly in unstable tests and comprise concurrency primitives (async, await), expectation-based synchronisation (expectation, fulfill), error propagation (throws), and explicit timing dependence (timeout, wait, now). Stability markers, chiefly the assertion vocabulary of plainly synchronous tests (xctassertequal), count as evidence against flakiness. Error analysis shows that the model fails when flakiness is hidden in shared infrastructure outside the test body or when async constructs are used in a deterministic context, exposing the intrinsic limit of lexical prediction. These results extend vocabulary-based flakiness detection to the Swift ecosystem and characterise both its effectiveness and its boundaries.

cs.SE↗