<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Case Study on the Effectiveness of LLMs in Verification with Proof Assistants · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2508.18587/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2508.18587/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Case Study on the Effectiveness of LLMs in Verification with Proof Assistants — mentioned by naasking</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48123076</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2508.18587:48123076</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 15:17:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Of course they are. LLMs are routinely used to generate Lean proofs, so of course they can also be used to generate verified software. They probably aren&amp;#x27;t being used that way, yet, but they will be: * A Case Study on the Effectiveness of LLMs in Verification with Proof Assistants, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18587v1 * CoqPilot, a plugin for LLM-based generation of proofs, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3691620.3695357&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2508.18587/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
