How Stable Are LLM-Generated Proofs Under Program Refactoring? A Stress Test for Verifiable Code Generation
arXiv:2610.36328v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for verifiable code generation usually test a proof against one fixed implementation. We ask whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. We introduce RefactorProof, which derives 458 Lean-certified variants from the 185 VERINA tasks that compile in our pinned environment while holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte. VERINA supplies reference proofs for 46 tasks, all
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2610.36328. Source account: arXiv:2610.36328v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for verifiable code generation usually test a proof against one fixed implementation. We ask whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. We introduce RefactorProof, which derives 458 Lean-certified variants from the 185 VERINA tasks that compile in our pinned environment while holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte. VERINA supplies reference proofs for 46 tasks, all
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “BlockLock: Reproducible LLM Inference with Fixed Batch Geometry” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “CCDWIKI: Decoupling Case Formulation from Response Generation in Longitudinal CBT Dialogue” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.