PreprintCited by 2Logic, programming, and type systemsFormal Methods in VerificationEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications

SEVerA: Verified Synthesis of Self-Evolving Agents

Open access
Banerjee, Debangshu, Xu, Changming, Ie, Eugene, Zhang, Ming, Peng, Daiyi, Lin, Chu-Cheng, Suresh, Tarun, Singh, Gagandeep·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Recent advances have shown the effectiveness of self-evolving LLM agents on tasks such as program repair and scientific discovery. In this paradigm, a planner LLM synthesizes an agent program that invokes parametric models, including LLMs, which are then tuned per task to improve performance. However, existing self-evolving agent frameworks provide no formal guarantees of safety or correctness. Because such programs are often executed autonomously on unseen inputs, this lack of guarantees raises reliability and security concerns. We formulate agentic code generation as a constrained learning problem, combining hard formal specifications with soft objectives capturing task utility. We introduce Formally Guarded Generative Models (FGGM), which allow the planner LLM to specify a formal output contract for each generative model call using first-order logic. Each FGGM call wraps the underlying model in a rejection sampler with a verified fallback, ensuring every returned output satisfies the contract for any input and parameter setting. Building on FGGM, we present SEVerA (Self-Evolving Verified Agents), a three-stage framework: Search synthesizes candidate parametric programs containing FGGM calls; Verification proves correctness with respect to hard constraints for all parameter values, reducing the problem to unconstrained learning; and Learning applies scalable gradient-based optimization, including GRPO-style fine-tuning, to improve the soft objective while preserving correctness. We evaluate SEVerA on Dafny program verification, symbolic math synthesis, and policy-compliant agentic tool use ($τ^2$-bench). Across tasks, SEVerA achieves zero constraint violations while improving performance over unconstrained and SOTA baselines, showing that formal behavioral constraints not only guarantee correctness but also steer synthesis toward higher-quality agents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2603.25111

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • SEVerA adds formal verification to self-evolving agents, orthogonal to compression level but critical for correctness.

    “SEVerA (Banerjee et al., 2026) adds formal verification to self-evolving agents, orthogonal to compression level but critical for correctness.”

    From Experience Compression Spectrum: Unifying Memory, Skills, and Rules in LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Banerjee et al., 2026

    The Related Work section says SEVerA adds verified formal specifications to self-evolving agents, and §5.3 says returned agents satisfy their behavioral specifications. The paper thus supports the verification and correctness portions, but our copy does not establish that verification is orthogonal to compression level. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SEVerA formulates self-evolving agent synthesis with formal output contracts and verified fallbacks, preserving specified behavioral constraints during optimization.

    “SEVerA formulates self-evolving agent synthesis with formal output contracts and verified fallbacks, preserving specified behavioral constraints during optimization [2].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Rajeev Alur, Rastislav Bodik, Garvit Juniwal, Milo M. K. Martin, Mukund Raghothaman, Sanjit A. Seshia, Rishabh Singh, Armando Solar-Lezama, Emina Torlak, and Abhishek Udupa. 2013. Syntax-guided synthesis. In 2013 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. 1-8. doi:10.1109/FMCAD.2013.6679385 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Debangshu Banerjee, Olivier Bouissou, and Stefan Zetzsche. 2026. DafnyPro: LLM-Assisted Automated Verification for Dafny Programs. arXiv:2601.05385 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05385 · arXiv
  3. Debangshu Banerjee, Tarun Suresh, Shubham Ugare, Sasa Misailovic, and Gagandeep Singh. 2025. CRANE: Reasoning with constrained LLM generation. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning. https://openreview. net/forum?id=wKs9fHYxCV
  4. Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2025. 𝜏 2 -Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment. arXiv:2506.07982 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982 · arXiv
  5. Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Prompting Is Programming: A Query Language for Large Language Models. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 7, PLDI, Article 186 (June 2023), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3591300 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Iwo Błądek and Krzysztof Krawiec. 2019. Solving symbolic regression problems with formal constraints. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Prague, Czech Republic) (GECCO '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 977-984. doi:10.1145/3321707.3321743 · DOI
  7. Miles Cranmer. 2023. Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl. arXiv:2305.01582 [astro-ph.IM] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01582 · arXiv
  8. Kevin Ellis, Catherine Wong, Maxwell Nye, Mathias Sablé-Meyer, Lucas Morales, Luke Hewitt, Luc Cary, Armando Solar-Lezama, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2021. DreamCoder: bootstrapping inductive program synthesis with wake- sleep library learning. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Virtual, Canada) (PLDI 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 835-850. doi:10.1145/3453483.3454080 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Zhisong Zhang, Kaixin Ma, Wenhao Yu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. 2025. WebEvolver: Enhancing Web Agent Self-Improvement with Coevolving World Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21024 (2025). · arXiv
  10. Yu Feng, Ruben Martins, Jacob Van Geffen, Isil Dillig, and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2017. Component-based synthesis of table consolidation and transformation tasks from examples. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Barcelona, Spain) (PLDI 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 422-436. doi:10.1145/3062341.3062351 · DOI
  11. Hongcheng Gao, Yue Liu, Yufei He, Longxu Dou, Chao Du, Zhijie Deng, Bryan Hooi, Min Lin, and Tianyu Pang. 2025. FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents. arXiv:2504.15257 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15257 · arXiv
  12. Chengquan Guo, Xun Liu, Chulin Xie, Andy Zhou, Yi Zeng, Zinan Lin, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. 2024. RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track. https://openreview.net/forum?id=mAG68wdggA
  13. Sankha Narayan Guria, Jeffrey S. Foster, and David Van Horn. 2023. Absynthe: Abstract Interpretation-Guided Synthesis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 7, PLDI, Article 171 (June 2023), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3591285 · DOI
  14. Christian Haider and Gabriel Kronberger. 2022. Shape-Constrained Symbolic Regression with NSGA-III. In Computer Aided Systems Theory -EUROCAST 2022: 18th International Conference, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, February 20-25, 2022, Revised Selected Papers (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 164-172. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25312-6_19 · DOI
  15. Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Liang Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. Iclr 1, 2 (2022), 3.
  16. Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. 2025. Automated Design of Agentic Systems. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=t9U3LW7JVX
  17. Adharsh Kamath, Sishen Zhang, Calvin Xu, Shubham Ugare, Gagandeep Singh, and Sasa Misailovic. 2025. Enforcing Temporal Constraints for LLM Agents. arXiv:2512.23738 [cs.PL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23738 · arXiv
  18. Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Sri Vardhamanan A, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts. 2024. DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into State-of-the-Art Pipelines. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=sY5N0zY5Od
  19. Jinwoo Kim, Qinheping Hu, Loris D'Antoni, and Thomas Reps. 2021. Semantics-guided synthesis. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 5, POPL, Article 30 (Jan. 2021), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3434311 · DOI
  20. Tristan Knoth, Di Wang, Nadia Polikarpova, and Jan Hoffmann. 2019. Resource-guided program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Phoenix, AZ, USA) (PLDI 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253-268. doi:10.1145/3314221.3314602 · DOI
  21. G. Kronberger, F. O. de Franca, B. Burlacu, C. Haider, and M. Kommenda. 2022. Shape-Constrained Symbolic Regression-Improving Extrapolation with Prior Knowledge. Evolutionary Computation 30, 1 (03 2022), 75-98. arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/evco/article-pdf/30/1/75/1995582/evco_a_00294.pdf doi:10.1162/evco_a_00294 · DOI
  22. Eunkyu Lee, Donghyeon Kim, Wonyoung Kim, and Insu Yun. 2025. Takedown: How It's Done in Modern Coding Agent Exploits. arXiv:2509.24240 [cs.CR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24240 · arXiv
  23. K. Rustan M. Leino. 2010. Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (Dakar, Senegal) (LPAR'10). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 348-370.
  24. Li Li, Minjie Fan, Rishabh Singh, and Patrick Riley. 2019. Neural-Guided Symbolic Regression with Asymptotic Constraints. arXiv:1901.07714 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.07714 · arXiv
  25. Wenqiang Li, Weijun Li, Linjun Sun, Min Wu, Lina Yu, Jingyi Liu, Yanjie Li, and Songsong Tian. 2023. Transformer- based model for symbolic regression via joint supervised learning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ULzyv9M1j5
  26. Chloe R Loughridge, Qinyi Sun, Seth Ahrenbach, Federico Cassano, Chuyue Sun, Ying Sheng, Anish Mudide, Md Rakib Hossain Misu, Nada Amin, and Max Tegmark. 2025. DafnyBench: A Benchmark for Formal Software Verification. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2025). https://openreview.net/forum?id=yBgTVWccIx
  27. Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. 2024. Gsm-symbolic: Understanding the limitations of mathematical reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05229 (2024). · arXiv
  28. Eric Mugnier, Emmanuel Anaya Gonzalez, Nadia Polikarpova, Ranjit Jhala, and Zhou Yuanyuan. 2025. Laurel: Unblocking Automated Verification with Large Language Models. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 9, OOPSLA1, Article 134 (April 2025), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3720499 · DOI
  29. Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Dawn Song, and Martin Vechev. 2025. Type-Constrained Code Generation with Language Models. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 9, PLDI, Article 171 (June 2025), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3729274 · DOI
  30. Shaan Nagy, Timothy Zhou, Nadia Polikarpova, and Loris D'Antoni. 2026. ChopChop: A Programmable Framework for Semantically Constraining the Output of Language Models. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 10, POPL, Article 66 (Jan. 2026), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3776708 · DOI
  31. Emilio Parisotto, Abdel rahman Mohamed, Rishabh Singh, Lihong Li, Dengyong Zhou, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2016. Neuro-Symbolic Program Synthesis. arXiv:1611.01855 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01855 · arXiv
  32. Kanghee Park, Jiayu Wang, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Nadia Polikarpova, and Loris D'Antoni. 2024. Grammar-Aligned Decoding. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https://openreview.net/ forum?id=5G7ve8E1Lu
  33. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. 2024. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models. arXiv:2402.03300 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300 · arXiv
  34. Parshin Shojaee, Kazem Meidani, Shashank Gupta, Amir Barati Farimani, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2025. LLM-SR: Scientific Equation Discovery via Programming with Large Language Models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=m2nmp8P5in
  35. Armando Solar-Lezama. 2013. Program Sketching. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15, 5 (2013), 475-495. doi:10.1007/s10009-012-0249-7 · DOI
  36. Chuyue Sun, Ying Sheng, Oded Padon, and Clark Barrett. 2024. Clover: Closed-Loop Verifiable Code Generation. In AI Verification: First International Symposium, SAIV 2024, Montreal, QC, Canada, July 22-23, 2024, Proceedings (Montreal, QC, Canada). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134-155. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65112-0_7 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Tarun Suresh, Debangshu Banerjee, Shubham Ugare, Sasa Misailovic, and Gagandeep Singh. 2025. DINGO: Constrained Inference for Diffusion LLMs. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=KaYMGsnZ4R
  38. Dídac Surís, Sachit Menon, and Carl Vondrick. 2023. ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoning. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 11854-11864. doi:10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.01092 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Wanxin Tian, Shijie Zhang, Kevin Zhang, Xiaowei Chi, Chunkai Fan, Junyu Lu, Yulin Luo, Qiang Zhou, Yiming Zhao, Ning Liu, Siyu Lin, Zhiyuan Qin, Xiaozhu Ju, Shanghang Zhang, and Jian Tang. 2025. SEEA-R1: Tree-Structured Reinforcement Fine-Tuning for Self-Evolving Embodied Agents. arXiv:2506.21669 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 21669 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: March 2026. · arXiv
  40. Shubham Ugare, Rohan Gumaste, Tarun Suresh, Gagandeep Singh, and Sasa Misailovic. 2025. IterGen: Iterative Semantic-aware Structured LLM Generation with Backtracking. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ac93gRzxxV
  41. Shubham Ugare, Tarun Suresh, Hangoo Kang, Sasa Misailovic, and Gagandeep Singh. 2025. SynCode: LLM Generation with Grammar Augmentation. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2025). https://openreview.net/forum?id= HiUZtgAPoH
  42. Lazar Valkov, Dipak Chaudhari, Akash Srivastava, Charles Sutton, and Swarat Chaudhuri. 2018. HOUDINI: lifelong learning as program synthesis. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Montréal, Canada) (NIPS'18).
  43. Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.16291 [cs.AI] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2305.16291 · arXiv
  44. Jiongxiao Wang, Qiaojing Yan, Yawei Wang, Yijun Tian, Soumya Smruti Mishra, Zhichao Xu, Megha Gandhi, Panpan Xu, and Lin Lee Cheong. 2026. Reinforcement Learning for Self-Improving Agent with Skill Library. arXiv:2512.17102 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17102 · arXiv
  45. Xingyao Wang, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Yizhe Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. 2024. Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Vienna, Austria) (ICML'24). JMLR.org, Article 2054, 25 pages.
  46. Ziqian Zhong, Aditi Raghunathan, and Nicholas Carlini. 2025. ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20270 (2025). · arXiv
  47. Wangchunshu Zhou, Yixin Ou, Shengwei Ding, Long Li, Jialong Wu, Tiannan Wang, Jiamin Chen, Shuai Wang, Xiaohua Xu, Ningyu Zhang, Huajun Chen, and Yuchen Eleanor Jiang. 2024. Symbolic Learning Enables Self-Evolving Agents. arXiv:2406.18532 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18532 · arXiv
  48. He Zhu, Zikang Xiong, Stephen Magill, and Suresh Jagannathan. 2019. An inductive synthesis framework for verifiable reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Phoenix, AZ, USA) (PLDI 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 686-701. doi:10.1145/3314221.3314638 · DOI
  49. Mingchen Zhuge, Wenyi Wang, Louis Kirsch, Francesco Faccio, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2024. GPTSwarm: Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. https://openreview.net/forum?id=uTC9AFXIhg Algorithm 3 validateFGGM 1: Input: FGGM definition G = (𝑖𝑑, 𝐺𝑀𝑖𝑑, 𝑡 𝑦𝑝𝑒𝑆𝑖𝑔, Φ 𝑙 , Ψ 𝑙 , 𝑓 𝑝 , 𝑓 𝑑 ) 2: Input: Library functions F 𝑐 , axioms A 3: Output: { } if valid else set of errors err 4: err ← { } 5: if ¬𝑊 𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑇 𝑦𝑝𝑒𝑑 (𝑡 𝑦𝑝𝑒𝑆𝑖𝑔) then 6: err ← err ∪ {Invalid type signature} 7: end if 8: if ¬𝑊 𝑒𝑙𝑙𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 (Φ 𝑙 ) then 9: err ← err ∪ {Invalid input contract} 10: end if 11: if ¬𝑊 𝑒𝑙𝑙𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 (Ψ 𝑙 ) then 12: err ← err ∪ {Invalid output contract} 13: end if 14: if ¬𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑇 𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 (Φ 𝑙 , F 𝑐 ) then 15: err ← err ∪ {Invalid library terms in Φ 𝑙 } 16: end if 17: if ¬𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑇 𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 (Ψ 𝑙 , F 𝑐 ) then 18: err ← err ∪ {Invalid library terms in Ψ 𝑙 } 19: end if 20: if ¬𝑇 𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 ( 𝑓 𝑝 ) or ¬𝑇 𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 ( 𝑓 𝑝 ) then 21: err ← err ∪ {Invalid prompting program} 22: end if 23: if ¬𝑇 𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 ( 𝑓 𝑑 ) or ¬𝑇 𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 ( 𝑓 𝑑 ) then 24: err ← err ∪ {Invalid fallback program} 25: end if 26: if ¬𝑉 𝑒𝑟𝑖 𝑓 𝑦 (∀𝑥 1 . . . 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑦. Φ 𝑙 (𝑥 1 . . . 𝑥 𝑛 ) ⇒ Ψ 𝑙 (𝑥 1 . . . 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑓 𝑑 (𝑥 1 . . . 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑦) ) ) then 27: err ← err ∪ {Fallback violates contract} 28: end if 29: return err Algorithm 4 checks whether a concrete input-output tuple satisfies the FGGM output contract. It first substitutes the concrete values into the specification Ψ 𝑙 . If the resulting formula is quantifier- free, the checker directly evaluates it by computing all terms using the library functions. If the specification contains quantifiers, the substituted formula is combined with the axioms and input specification and submitted to an SMT solver with a timeout. The procedure returns true only if the solver confirms satisfiability within the time bound.

Authors
Banerjee, D., Xu, C., Ie, E., Zhang, M., Peng, D., Lin, C.-C., Suresh, T., & Singh, G.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7141461550
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Keywords
formal verification, formal specification, rejection sampling, constrained learning, program synthesis, program verification

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