正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

AI agents are writing more code. How can developers ensure that code is correct? Microsoft Research’s Proof-Driven Development (PDD) Kit explores a more rigorous approach: it translates a developer’s intent into a formal specification, then uses formal verification to prove that generated code meets it. PDD Kit works with...

63,315 次观看 • 2 天前 •via X (Twitter)

13 条评论

Microsoft Research 的头像
Microsoft Research2 天前

Join @GitHubUniverse Oct 28–29 in SF or online. Explore AI, security, and open source with hands-on sessions, product updates, and devs from around the world.

Harry Nicholls 的头像
Harry Nicholls2 天前

I think this is the future of software development until we solve program synthesis. Love the idea of bringing formal methods in by default, and making proofs legible to those who aren’t experts will be challenging.

kevin joo 的头像
kevin joo1 天前

@VictorTaelin they are starting to catch on!

H.M Gowda 的头像
H.M Gowda1 天前

simply call PRD.

EDDY VU 的头像
EDDY VU1 天前

Bringing formal verification into the agent loop is huge, especially for catching subtle edge cases unit tests consistently miss.

Lachy 的头像
Lachy1 天前

if the ai drafts the formal spec and i approve it, what catches a spec that is valid but quietly weaker than what i meant?

AxleMode 的头像
AxleMode2 天前

The mutation check in the demo is the bit worth copying: show the deliberately broken versions failing beside the proof result.

Nur Hasan 的头像
Nur Hasan1 天前

How is it different from PRD?

安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB 的头像
安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB1 天前

先把意图写清楚这步挺关键,不然验证再严也可能证明错东西。

Humanity Labs 的头像
Humanity Labs1 天前

Formal verification is a strong answer for code. Business work needs its equivalent: explicit standards, logged decisions, exception routes, and a human outcome owner. “The agent completed it” is not the same as “the result is acceptable.”

NextSignal 的头像
NextSignal1 天前

形式化验证过去最大的阻力,是写规范的人力成本比写代码还高。这套工具真正的考题在上一层:证明能保证代码符合规范,但规范本身写错了、或者根本没覆盖真实需求,证明照样成立。所以最难自动化的不是验证,而是把「到底想要什么」说清楚——这一层最后还是得人来守。

Kim Noël ⚡ 📖 的头像
Kim Noël ⚡ 📖1 天前

@grok is this like Lauren tan 's pstack?

Diego Alejandro R 的头像
Diego Alejandro R1 天前

We need more and better tools to review written code by AI

相关视频

How do you actually formally verify the code underpinning Ethereum's future? In this episode (the finale of the lean Ethereum miniseries), Nico sits down with Alex Hicks (Alexander Hicks), lead of Protocol Snarkification at the Ethereum Foundation, to break down formal verification from first principles. They cover: – What formal verification actually is and the trust boundaries between proof assistants, SMT solvers, and kernels – The full verification stack for RISC-V ZKVMs: from SAIL specs to constraint extraction to soundness proofs – Why writing constraints directly in Lean makes proofs 10–100x more ergonomic – How AI is now proving hard theorems in hours for $200 — and what that unlocks for the whole pipeline They also explore the boundaries problem, why specs can have bugs too, and the end goal of a full Lean stack that bypasses Rust and LLVM entirely. Listen to the full episode ------------------------------------------------------------ TIMECODES: 09:16 – What is formal verification? Proof assistants vs SMT solvers 18:33 – Formal verification of code: specs, semantics, and trust boundaries 29:30 – Formally verifying the Lean Ethereum stack: RISC-V ZKVMs in focus 33:02 – Extracting ZKVM constraints into Lean and proving soundness 36:35 – Writing constraints directly in Lean: 10–100x better proof ergonomics 44:02 – Proving Polishchuk–Spielman in 8 hours for $200 with AI 51:01 – The end goal: a full Lean stack bypassing Rust and LLVM

Zero Knowledge Podcast

15,289 次观看 • 7 个月前

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

The Pragmatic Engineer

39,073 次观看 • 5 个月前

Xavier Leroy (creator of OCaml) is an expert in compilers, formal verification of software and functional programming. This interview should be an approachable resource if you're curious about formal verification of software since I was learning that on the fly during it. In this episode: • OCaml compared with Rust and JavaScript • What is formal verification and how does it work • How languages call each other across boundaries • How to address "almost-correct" LLM code • How type inference works in programming languages Where to watch: • YouTube - • Spotify - • Apple Podcasts - • Transcript - Thank you to the sponsor of this episode for supporting my work: • WorkOS: makes your app Enterprise Ready with easy to use APIs to add SSO, SCIM, RBAC, and more in just a few lines of code, check them out at Chapters: 00:00 - Intro 00:43 - What sets OCaml apart 04:39 - OCaml vs Rust 07:57 - Why is manual memory management more performant 11:21 - Javascript vs OCaml 14:00 - Famous Rob Pike quote 16:05 - Type inference and how it works 22:12 - What is formal verification and how does it work 40:07 - What made multicore support difficult for OCaml 50:17 - How programming languages interface and call each other 57:41 - The danger of almost-correct LLM code 01:05:39 - How LLMs will change programming languages 01:10:26 - Industry vs academia 01:15:05 - Most interesting unsolved problems 01:18:30 - Top book recommendations for engineers 01:21:17 - Advice for his younger self 01:23:31 - Outro

Ryan Peterman

24,256 次观看 • 3 个月前

There’s a popular theory that AI will finally make formal verification mainstream because mathematical proof of correctness will be needed when machines write most or all of the code. But will this happen? Hillel Wayne is one of the best people to answer. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 04:32 The Crossover Project 11:37 What software engineering does better 15:30 What traditional engineering does better 18:17 Formal methods 29:32 TLA+: what it is and demo 36:58 TLA+ at Amazon 38:10 Ways distributed systems break 41:03 Formal methods and systems thinking 46:20 The value of learning math 50:23 What TLA+ is good for and isn’t 52:50 Alloy: a declarative language for software modeling 58:53 Other formal methods tools 1:01:24 Property-based testing 1:05:31 AI and the need for formal verification 1:12:29 Logic for programmers 1:14:35 Hillel’s 2025 prediction on AI’s impact 1:21:30 Book recommendation Brought to you by: • Antithesis – verify your system’s correctness without human review or traditional integration tests – and avoid bugs or outages. • turbopuffer – a vector and full-text search engine built on object storage. It’s fast, cheap, and extremely scalable. • WorkOS – everything you need to make your app enterprise ready. Two things I found especially interesting, talking with Hillel: 1. Amazon used TLA+ to find a bug almost impossible to locate without formal methods. In the paper How AWS uses formal methods, the AWS team shared that they’d found a complicated bug for which the shortest error trace to exhibit was 35 steps (!!). The bug passed unnoticed through extensive design review, code reviews, and testing. AWS concluded they wouldn’t have uncovered it if they’d stuck to conventional testing approaches. 2. Why not use formal verification for everything, then? It’s because specs in the real world are a nightmare to write. Even a simple problem like “find the file in a directory that has the most lines” gets complicated when modeled with formal methods. We would have to answer questions like: ‘do we look at ASCII or UTF-8 new line characters, what about unreadable files, and Symlinks?’ Without formal methods, we can write a simple verification that is right in 99%+ of cases. Formal methods require a lot of extra effort for the less than 1% of exotic use cases!

Gergely Orosz

34,926 次观看 • 2 个月前