Specula: Scaling formal specifications for autonomous model checking of system code

Specula is a push-button agentic system that generates high-quality formal specifications for large, complex system code and uses the specifications for highly effective model checking and bug finding. Specula employs large language model (LLM) based coding agents to autonomously develop TLA+ specifications, including invariants that describe correctness properties of the target system and formal models that describe the system implementation with the right level of abstractions. Specula is fully autonomous and thus eliminates the barrier of applying formal methods to real-world system code (as in traditional human-centric approaches). Meanwhile, Specula addresses limitations of LLM-driven techniques like reward hacking and hallucinations through self-evolving loops that iteratively improve specification quality by enabling the agents to deepen their understanding of system code and its behaviors. We have used Specula to check 48 open-source system projects; Specula found 249 bugs including many deep bugs that are hard to find by existing approaches. Specula has been used by several companies and is maintained at https://github.com/specula-org/Specula.

TLA+-Bench: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark and Dataset for Natural-Language to TLA Specification Generation

Large language models increasingly write TLA$^{+}$ formal specifications from natural-language descriptions, but progress is hard to measure: existing resources grade by resemblance to a reference or by whether the output parses, neither of which shows correctness. We present TLA$^{+}$-Bench, a dataset and benchmark that grades by execution. Every gold specification ships a configuration the TLA$^{+}$ model checker runs over the full reachable state space, deciding exactly whether the specification holds the properties that configuration names. The dataset holds 403 model-checked gold and 897 parse-only silver specifications from 13 public repositories, subsumes prior TLA$^{+}$ generation data, and carries four model-written descriptions in two styles from two providers, with difficulty and category labels. Our main finding is about measurement itself: an exact oracle gives not one correctness number but a range. Varying only the grading choices earlier benchmarks leave unstated, on one fixed set of model outputs, the correct rate moves sixfold, from 10.0\% to 1.7\%; adding the interface-supply choice, where the model is told the configuration's names, widens the range to elevenfold, from 18.7\% to 1.7\%. We call this range the correctness envelope and measure each of its bounds. The findings inside it are stable. Every model writes valid TLA$^{+}$ far more often than correct TLA$^{+}$: the strongest is correct 16\% of the time by default and 26\% when given the interface names, open models at most 1\%, and correctness falls sharply with difficulty.

TLA-Prover: Verifiable TLA+ Specification Synthesis via Preference-Optimized Low-Rank Adaptation

TLA+ is a formal specification language for verifying distributed systems and safety-critical protocols. Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce TLA+ specifications that fail the TLC model checker for semantic reasons. Across 25 LLMs, the best public baseline is 26.6% syntactic parse and 8.6% semantic model-check. We present TLA-Prover, a 20-billion-parameter model for TLA+ specification synthesis. Training combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on verified examples with repair-based group-relative policy optimization (GRPO). In the GRPO stage, the model learns to fix its own rejected specifications. We also train a direct preference optimization (DPO) variant from the same SFT checkpoint as an ablation. TLC provides the reward signal directly, with no learned reward model. Four tiers grade each output: Bronze (parses), Silver (no warnings), Gold (passes TLC), and Diamond. To reach Diamond, the model's correctness property is automatically altered in a small way; TLC must then detect a violation. If TLC still passes, the property was always-true and contributes nothing; the output fails Diamond. TLA-Prover reaches 9/30 (i.e. pass@1 = 30%) at both Gold and Diamond on a held-out 30-problem benchmark. This is roughly 3.5x the 8.6% untuned baseline. The DPO variant reaches 20% at Diamond. Gold and Diamond coincide at every checkpoint; this prevents the trivial-property failure mode.

Can LLMs Write Correct TLA+ Specifications? Evaluating Natural-Language-to-TLA+ Generation

TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption. LLMs show promise, but no prior study measures whether they produce semantically correct TLA+ specifications from natural language. This paper presents the first systematic evaluation of LLM-based TLA+ specification synthesis from natural language. Our study evaluates 30 LLMs across eight families on a curated dataset of 205 TLA+ specifications: 25 open-weight models across four prompting strategies (2,600 runs) and 5 proprietary models under few-shot prompting (130 runs), all validated by the SANY parser and TLC model checker. LLMs achieve up to 26.6% syntactic correctness but only 8.6% semantic correctness, with successes exclusive to progressive prompting. Results show that model size does not predict quality, e.g., DeepSeek r1:8b outperforms its 70B variant across all strategies, which suggests the importance of reasoning alignment for formal languages. Code-specialized models consistently underperform due to negative transfer from mainstream language training. We identify five recurring hallucination categories, all traceable to specific training data biases. These results suggest that current LLMs do not generate reliable TLA+ specifications without expert oversight. We release the evaluation framework, code, and dataset to support reproducibility and future research.