Cited by 2Logic, programming, and type systemsSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Evaluating the Ability of GPT-4o to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFast

Rego, Marilyn, Fan, Wen, Hu, Xin, Dod, Sanya, Ni, Zhaorui, Xie, Danning, DiVincenzo, Jenna, Tan, Lin·2025·2025 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on AI Foundation Models and Software Engineering (Forge)

Abstract

Static verification is a powerful method for enhancing software quality, but it demands significant human labor and resources. This is particularly true of static verifiers that reason about heap manipulating programs using an ownership logic. LLMs have shown promise in a number of software engineering activities, including code generation, test generation, proof generation for theorem provers, and specification generation for static verifiers. However, prior work has not explored how well LLMs can perform specification generation for specifications based in an ownership logic, such as separation logic. To address this gap, this paper explores OpenAI’s GPT-4o model’s effectiveness in generating specifications on C programs that are verifiable with VeriFast, a separation logic based static verifier. Our experiment employs three different types of user inputs as well as basic and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to assess GPT-4o’s capabilities. Our results indicate that the specifications generated by GPT-4o preserve functional behavior, but struggle to be verifiable. When the specifications are verifiable, they contain redundancies. Future directions are discussed to improve the performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/forge66646.2025.00035

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The key bottleneck of certificate-based verification is certificate quality: current LLMs often fail to produce properties that are both verifiable and complete enough to exclude incorrect behaviors.

    “Their key bottleneck is certificate quality: current LLMs often fail to produce properties that are both verifiable and complete enough to exclude incorrect behaviors [18], [70], [71].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 2

Authors
Rego, M., Fan, W., Hu, X., Dod, S., Ni, Z., Xie, D., DiVincenzo, J., & Tan, L.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Venue
2025 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on AI Foundation Models and Software Engineering (Forge)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2025-04-27
Pages
246-251
OpenAlex
W4411950689
Cited by
2
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE/ACM International Conference on AI Foundation Models and Software Engineering (FORGE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
GPT-4o, large language models, specification generation, VeriFast, separation logic, static verification, C programs, heap-manipulating programs, chain-of-thought prompting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review