SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?

George Ma; Benjamin Mikek; Haoyu Li; Ferhat Erata; Yuhao Zhang; Zeren Shui; Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani; Jun Huan; Murali Krishna Ramanathan; Somayeh Sojoudi; Hao Zhou; Anoop Deoras

arXiv · 2609.21190

SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?

George Ma·Benjamin Mikek·Haoyu Li·Ferhat Erata·Yuhao Zhang·Zeren Shui·Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani·Jun Huan·Murali Krishna Ramanathan·Somayeh Sojoudi·Hao Zhou·Anoop Deoras

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Ensuring the correctness of LLM-generated code is a core challenge for modern software engineering. Benchmarks for agentic code generation check correctness with held-out test suites, which are inherently incomplete and increasingly susceptible to memorization. Formal verification avoids both problems, but existing work covers only standalone tasks whose specifications are given as input, not real issues, which touch large repositories and state intent in vague natural language. We present Benchproofer, a pipeline that turns a coding task with a known correct patch into a formally verified one: it writes a specification for the new code, summarizes the existing functions that code calls with axioms, and admits an instance only after mechanical and adversarial gates agree. Applying it to SWE-bench Verified yields SWE-Proof, 500 real issues whose correctness is formally verified rather than tested, and it extends to SWE-bench Pro. Evaluating Claude Opus 4.8, we find that verification catches what tests miss: a quarter of test-passing patches admit counterexamples, which a structured natural-language specification does not fix, while a correct formal one lifts resolution from 85% to 95%. Writing that specification is the hard part: an agent that must write its own gains nothing over an unaided baseline, and only 56% of those specifications pass our audit. The usual failure is faithfulness, a specification that constrains part of the required behavior and leaves the rest free. Specification quality still tracks the outcome, failing on 92% of unresolved instances against 51% of resolved ones, making faithful specification synthesis a concrete open problem.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG cs.AI cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

George Ma, Benjamin Mikek, Haoyu Li, Ferhat Erata, Yuhao Zhang, Zeren Shui, Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani, Jun Huan, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Somayeh Sojoudi, Hao Zhou, Anoop Deoras. 2026-09-22. SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21190

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A Probabilistic Approach for Model Alignment with Human Comparisons

A growing trend involves integrating human knowledge into learning frameworks, leveraging subtle human feedback to refine AI models. While these approaches have shown promising results in practice, the theoretical understanding of when and why such approaches are effective remains limited. This work takes steps toward developing a theoretical framework for analyzing the conditions under which human comparisons can enhance the traditional supervised learning process. Specifically, this paper studies the effective use of noisy-labeled data and human comparison data to address challenges arising from noisy environment and high-dimensional models. We propose a two-stage "Supervised Learning+Learning from Human Feedback" (SL+LHF) framework that connects machine learning with human feedback through a probabilistic bisection approach. The two-stage framework first learns low-dimensional representations from noisy-labeled data via an SL procedure and then uses human comparisons to improve the model alignment. To examine the efficacy of the alignment phase, we introduce a concept, termed the "label-noise-to-comparison-accuracy" (LNCA) ratio. This paper identifies from a theoretical perspective the conditions under which the "SL+LHF" framework outperforms the pure SL approach; we then leverage this LNCA ratio to highlight the advantage of incorporating human evaluators in reducing sample complexity. We validate the framework on a real high-dimensional crowdfunding-prediction task: under a fixed query budget, trading labels for comparisons improves accuracy precisely when labels are scarce, and the findings hold when the evaluator is replaced by real large language models. A study conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) further validates the model primitives.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

An Initial Introduction to Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has exploded in popularity in recent years. While numerous approaches have been developed, they can be broadly categorized into three main types: centralized training and execution (CTE), centralized training for decentralized execution (CTDE), and decentralized training and execution (DTE). CTE methods assume centralization during training and execution (e.g., with fast, free, and perfect communication) and have the most information during execution. CTDE methods are the most common, as they leverage centralized information during training while enabling decentralized execution -- using only information available to that agent during execution. Decentralized training and execution methods make the fewest assumptions and are often simple to implement. This text is an introduction to cooperative MARL -- MARL in which all agents share a single, joint reward. It is meant to explain the setting, basic concepts, and common methods for the CTE, CTDE, and DTE settings. It does not cover all work in cooperative MARL as the area is quite extensive. I have included work that I believe is important for understanding the main concepts in the area and apologize to those that I have omitted. Topics include simple applications of single-agent methods to CTE as well as some more scalable methods that exploit the multi-agent structure, independent Q-learning and policy gradient methods and their extensions, as well as value function factorization methods including the well-known VDN, QMIX, and QPLEX approaches, and centralized critic methods including MADDPG, COMA, and MAPPO. I also discuss common misconceptions, the relationship between different approaches, and some open questions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Transductive Off-policy Proximal Policy Optimization

Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) is a popular model-free reinforcement learning algorithm, esteemed for its simplicity and efficacy. However, due to its inherent on-policy nature, its proficiency in harnessing data from disparate policies is constrained. This paper introduces a novel off-policy extension to the original PPO method, christened Transductive Off-policy PPO (ToPPO). Herein, we provide theoretical justification for incorporating off-policy data in PPO training and prudent guidelines for its safe application. Our contribution includes a novel formulation of the policy improvement lower bound for prospective policies derived from off-policy data, accompanied by a computationally efficient mechanism to optimize this bound, underpinned by assurances of monotonic improvement. Comprehensive experimental results across six representative tasks underscore ToPPO's promising performance.

cs.LG↗