Patents play a critical role in driving technological innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights to their inventions. However the process of drafting a patent application is often expensive and time-consuming, making it a prime candidate for automation. Despite recent advancements in language models, several challenges hinder the development of robust automated patent drafting systems. First, the information within a patent application is highly confidential, which often prevents the use of closed-source LLMs for automating this task. Second, the process of drafting a patent application is difficult for even the most advanced language models due to their long context, technical writing style, and specialized domain knowledge. To address these challenges, we introduce AutoSpec, a secure, agentic framework for Automatically drafting patent Specification. Our approach decomposes the drafting process into a sequence of manageable subtasks, each solvable by smaller, open-source language models enhanced with custom tools tailored for drafting patent specification. To assess our system, we design a novel evaluation protocol in collaboration with experienced patent attorneys. Our automatic and expert evaluations show that AutoSpec outperforms existing baselines on a patent drafting task.

Automated program verification has always been an important component of building trustworthy software. While the analysis of real-world programs remains a theoretical challenge, the automation of loop invariant analysis has effectively resolved the problem. However, real-world programs that often mix complex data structures and control flows pose challenges to traditional loop invariant generation tools. To enhance the applicability of invariant generation techniques, we proposed ACInv, an Automated Complex program loop Invariant generation tool, which combines static analysis with Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate the proper loop invariants. We utilize static analysis to extract the necessary information for each loop and embed it into prompts for the LLM to generate invariants for each loop. Subsequently, we employ an LLM-based evaluator to assess the generated invariants, refining them by either strengthening, weakening, or rejecting them based on their correctness, ultimately obtaining enhanced invariants. We conducted experiments on ACInv, which showed that ACInv outperformed previous tools on data sets with data structures, and maintained similar performance to the state-of-the-art tool AutoSpec on numerical programs without data structures. For the total data set, ACInv can solve 21% more examples than AutoSpec and can generate reference data structure templates.

Each specification defines the expected model output for a given input space ( 2.1). The increasing adoption of neural networks in learning-augmented systems highlights the importance Specifically, researchers have relied on their domain knowledge of model safety and robustness, particularly and intuition about individual applications to manually in safety-critical domains. Despite progress in create specifications. For instance, in adaptive video streaming, the formal verification of neural networks, current where a neural network is employed to determine the practices require users to manually define model bitrate for the next video chunk based on recent network specifications--properties that dictate expected conditions, Eliyahu et al. (2021) define a specification as, model behavior in various scenarios. This manual "[if video] chunks were downloaded quickly (more quickly process, however, is prone to human error, limited than it takes to play a chunk), the DNN should eventually in scope, and time-consuming. In this paper, not choose the worst resolution." Similar manual specifications we introduce AutoSpec, the first framework to are devised for other learning-augmented systems, e.g., automatically generate comprehensive and accurate database indexes (Tan et al., 2021), memory allocators (Wei specifications for neural networks in learningaugmented et al., 2023), and job schedulers (Wu et al., 2022).