The results indicate that current general-purpose LLMs can achieve practically significant performance on the unstructured NL-to-LTL task without task-specific fine-tuning, and suggest that modern LLMs are becoming viable front-end assistants for semi-automated formalization workflows.
Abstract
Automatically translating unstructured natural language requirements into formal specifications remains a challenge in requirements engineering and formal methods, particularly for safety- and mission-critical systems whose verification depends on mathematically precise specifications. This paper evaluates whether contemporary off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) can help bridge this gap by generating Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas directly from unstructured requirements. The study examines six modern LLMs using a few-shot prompting strategy on a heterogeneous benchmark of 15 structurally varied requirements. Five independent generations were collected for each requirement-model pair, yielding 450 candidate LTL formulas in total. Performance was assessed through manual semantic evaluation, pass@k for k in {1, 3, 5}, and a self-consistency measure capturing syntactic reproducibility across stochastic trials. The results indicate that current general-purpose LLMs can achieve practically significant performance on the unstructured NL-to-LTL task without task-specific fine-tuning. The study also considers understandability for non-experts by pairing generated formulas with model-produced natural language explanations and discussing the complementary use of timeline-based LTL visualization. The findings suggest that modern LLMs are becoming viable front-end assistants for semi-automated formalization workflows.
In fast-evolving software systems, effective 'natural language requirements parsing' and downstream change effect analysis capability across a multitude of codes represents low-hanging-fruit in this regard. We present a structured framework to deploy Large Language Models (LLMs) for automating two essential software engineering tasks, namely requirement interpretation and change impact analysis Utilizing the inherent understanding of semantics offered by transformer-based LLMs, the novel approach advances by converting vague and unstructured requirement documents into structured but machine-readable specifications to offer a direct traceability mapping from requirements to system components. Additionally, the framework leverages LLM-driven dependency analysis to predict and quantify how change effects percolate through connected modules which can minimize manual effort and human errors. This approach combines prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for domain-relevant accuracy plus fine-tuning techniques. On open-source and enterprise-grade software projects, experimental evaluations show that disambiguation accuracy, traceability precision, and change impact coverage of our approach are orders of magnitude better than state-of-the-art rule-based or static analysis tools. Notes: The results illustrate the application of LLMs at scale and demonstrate how these can alter software engineering workflows by removing bottlenecks (at a massive scale) at different stages of the software development lifecycle. In this research, we provide a generalizable pipeline that helps to bridge the gap from NLP advancements into practice for software lifecycle management.
Nithya Krishnan, Kumaran Ramanujam, Suresh Babu Narra et al.· 2026 International Conferenc...· 0 citations
Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees. Objectives: This study aims to eliminate logical inconsistencies and enforce structural conformance in LLM-generated requirements while quantifying the LLM's pre-validation decision uncertainty within a formal domain model. Methods: We present a neuro-symbolic multi-agent architecture that operationalizes the Object-Oriented Method for Requirements Authoring and Management (OOMRAM) lattice. The LLM acts as a non-deterministic heuristic for lattice traversal, while a deterministic symbolic validator enforces all structural constraints. We introduce a three-valued (T, I, F) -- Truth, Indeterminacy, Falsity -- framework to classify and score the LLM's requirement decisions before and after validation. Results: Evaluated across 37 natural-language project visions in eleven application families, the system completely eliminated structural inconsistencies in 35 out of 37 cases (94.6%), with the remaining two containing only 6 unresolved structural errors (0.39% of decisions) due to iteration limits. Three-valued analysis revealed that 24.7% of all decisions are indeterminate -- structurally valid but discretionary choices not explicitly mandated by the stakeholder. Conclusion: Offloading structural integrity to a deterministic symbolic layer successfully guarantees structural conformance, while the three-valued classification provides a formal way to measure neural uncertainty, facilitating safe LLM deployment in formal requirements engineering.
GenCTL is proposed, a prompt-based framework for effective and model-aware NL2CTL translation without task-specific fine-tuning that improves the reliability and practical checkability of LLM-generated CTL specifications.
Ran Tao· Poster Volume 0007 The 2026...· 0 citations
SIRNA significantly reduces the number of false positives and false negatives while offering explainability for its findings, and is generalizable to domains where business logic exists in both natural language documentation and programmatic implementation.
Joseph Tafese, Milad Hooshyar, Sam Bayless et al.· 0 citations
The results support a trade-off interpretation rather than a universal ranking: additional structural constraints changed failure modes and efficiency, but did not monotonically improve correctness or solve ambiguity and multi-turn state consistency.
BRIDGE is presented, a structured prompting framework that decomposes verification into three interconnected domains: Code (implementations), Specifications (formal intent), and Theorem State-ments (constructive correctness claims), and elicits domain-specific intermediate reasoning to connect them.
Robert Joseph George, Carson Eisenach, Udaya Ghai et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
