Evaluating the Ability of GPT-4o to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFast
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Guiding Human Validation of LLM-Generated Code via Verifiable Literate Programming (2026) · cites this paper as [70]
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