The Case Against Formal Verification, 50 Years Later - Ivan Gavran

Prediction: AI will make formal verification go mainstream — Martin Kleppmann’s blog

Much has been said about the effects that AI will have on software development, but there is an angle I haven’t seen talked about: I believe that AI will bring formal verification, which for decades has been a bit of a fringe pursuit, into the software engineering mainstream.

What Functional Programmers Get Wrong About Systems - Ian Duncan

Type systems verify properties of programs. Production correctness is a property of systems. The gap between these is where the interesting failures live.

What It Now Takes to Establish a Fact

Hilke Schellmann & Mihir Kshirsagar from Princeton CITP on findings from a convening on information integrity, authentication and verification in the age of AI.

Experts Argue Whether Computers Could Reason, and if They Should (Published 1977)

Computer world is in midst of fundamental dispute over question of computer intelligence since MIT Prof Joseph Weizenbaum wrote book arguing that machines can never be made to reason like people and should not be; Weizenbaum por (M)

Konrad Hinsen's blog

How can we document software and computational analyses in such a way that others can convince themselves of their validity, and build on them for their own work? The question has been around for many years, and a number of attempts have been made to provide partial answers. This post provides a brief review and describes my own tentative answer, inviting you to play with it.

Formal Verification Reference - Aura

This document describes the formal verification infrastructure that provides mathematical guarantees for Aura protocols through Quint model checking, Lean theorem proving, and Telltale session type verification.

Mathematician catches AI-generated research error by OpenAI president | Benjamin Golub posted on the topic | LinkedIn

In case you think the problem of science slop is hypothetical, here's something that happened on X yesterday: The president of OpenAI sharing wrong science slop as proud evidence of the power of mathematical AI. Within a day, the mathematician Tony Feng found a gap that undercut the paper's central argument; the author conceded, and (to his credit!) Brockman deleted the tweet as soon as he became aware. Feng was a hero to catch this. The author of the refuted claim is a mathematician but a self-described outsider to this area, with a prior big claim posted and quickly withdrawn. Greg Brockman is not an expert, either. Neither could check what they were amplifying. Heroes catching errors one at a time won't hold against the volume of AI-generated research now coming. We need an automated, independent verification layer for knowledge work, which is what we're building at Refine (refine.ink). Passing such verification should become a necessary step before big claims, especially outside one's own expertise. A link to a bigger-picture post on this is in the comments. | 23 comments on LinkedIn

AI agents are checking the scientific literature — and spotting decades-old errors

The technology is proving adept at finding faults in decades-old papers and reference databases.

On AI and building your own GIS software

Of the thousands of essays over the past two years surrounding AI and its implications are some very thought provoking ones with enormous implications for GIS. Some of the essays are around the the…

Palomar – a registry of Lean verified mathematics

In recent months there has been a proliferation of AI-generated proofs of various old and new results, some of which have been formalized in the proof assistant language Lean. However, checking tha…

Mathematics with large language models as provers and verifiers

During 2024 and 2025 the discussion about the theorem-proving capabilities of large language models started reporting interesting success stories, mostly to do with difficult exercises (such as problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad), but also with conjectures [Feldman & Karbasi, arXiv:2509.18383v1] formulated for the purpose of verifying whether the artificial intelligence could prove it. In this paper we report a theorem proving feat achieved by ChatGPT by using a protocol involving different prover and verifier instances of the gpt-5 model working collaboratively. To make sure that the produced proofs do not suffer from hallucinations, the final proof is formally verified by the lean proof assistant, and the conformance of premises and conclusion of the lean code is verified by a human. Our methodology is by no means complete or exact. It was nonetheless able to solve five out of six 2025 IMO problems, and close about a third of the sixty-six number theory conjectures in [Cohen, Journal of Integer Sequences, 2025].