In this interview series, we're meeting some of the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants to find out more about their research. We sat down with Abdelrahman Sayed Sayed to chat about his work on formal verification applied to autonomous vehicles. Could you tell us a bit about where you're studying and the broad topic of your research? My PhD topic is formal verification of neural ODE (ordinary differential equations) for safety evaluation in autonomous vehicles. Could you say something about formal verification and why it's such an important topic?

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results in code generation, yet struggle with program verification, especially in interactive proof frameworks such as Lean4. A central challenge is scalability: verified synthesis requires not just code, but also precise specifications and correctness proofs, and existing approaches rarely span all three domains. We present BRIDGE, the first systematic study of structured prompting for scalable verified program generation. BRIDGE decomposes verification into three interconnected domains: Code (executable implementations), Specifications (formal intent statements), and Proofs (constructive correctness arguments). Our key idea is to elicit distinct reasoning behaviors functional, specification-driven, and proof-oriented as intermediate representations that preserve semantic structure and connect these domains. Through systematic ablations, we show that this approach substantially improves both accuracy and efficiency beyond standard error feedback methods. For example, functional reasoning improves correctness of code in formal languages (Lean4) by nearly 1.5x (pass@5) over direct baselines. In inference-time compute, functional reasoning is also 2x more efficient, achieving higher pass rates with fewer generations and lower total sampling budgets. Similarly, we find that specification-driven prompting boosts Python coding pass rates by up to 17.5%. These findings suggest that structured domain alignment is a promising direction for advancing verified synthesis. BRIDGE establishes a foundation for training via expert iteration or RLVR, enabling models to internalize these reasoning strategies across code, specifications, and proofs.

Vibe coding, the much-touted use of AI techniques for programming, faces two overwhelming obstacles: the difficulty of specifying goals ("prompt engineering" is a form of requirements engineering, one of the toughest disciplines of software engineering); and the hallucination phenomenon. Programs are only useful if they are correct or very close to correct. The solution? Combine the creativity of artificial intelligence with the rigor of formal specification methods and the power of formal program verification, supported by modern proof tools.

We introduce a novel framework for evaluating the alignment between natural language plans and their expected behavior by converting them into Kripke structures and Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) using Large Language Models (LLMs) and performing model checking. We systematically evaluate this framework on a simplified version of the PlanBench plan verification dataset and report on metrics like Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1 scores. Our experiments demonstrate that GPT-5 achieves excellent classification performance (F1 score of 96.3%) while almost always producing syntactically perfect formal representations that can act as guarantees. However, the synthesis of semantically perfect formal models remains an area for future exploration.

In the past few years LLMs have emerged as a tool that can aid programmers by taking natural language descriptions and generating code based on it. However, the reliability of LLM code generation and current validation techniques for it are far from strong enough to be used for mission-critical or safety-critical applications. In this work we explore ways to offer formal guarantees of correctness to LLM generated code; such guarantees could improve the quality of general AI Code Assistants and support their use for critical applications. To address this challenge we propose to incorporate a Formal Query Language that can represent a user's intent in a formally defined but natural language-like manner that a user can confirm matches their intent. We then have a formal specification of the user intent which we can use to verify that LLM-generated code matches the user's intent. We implement these ideas in our system, Astrogator, for the Ansible programming language, widely used for system administration, including for critical systems. The system includes an intuitive formal query language, a calculus for representing the behavior of Ansible programs, and a symbolic interpreter and a unification algorithm which together are used for the verification. A key innovation in Astrogator is the use of a Knowledge Base to capture system-specific implementation dependencies that greatly reduce the need for system knowledge in expressing formal queries. On a benchmark suite of 21 code-generation tasks, our verifier is able to verify correct code in 83% of cases and identify incorrect code in 92%.

This paper introduces VeriThoughts, a novel dataset designed for reasoning-based Verilog code generation. We establish a new benchmark framework grounded in formal verification methods to evaluate the quality and correctness of generated hardware descriptions. Additionally, we present a suite of specialized small-scale models optimized specifically for Verilog generation. Our work addresses the growing need for automated hardware design tools that can produce verifiably correct implementations from high-level specifications, potentially accelerating the hardware development process while maintaining rigorous correctness guarantees. Our code and data are available at \href{https://github.com/wilyub/VeriThoughts}{this URL}.

``Vibe coding'' -- the practice of developing software through iteratively conversing with a large language model (LLM) -- has exploded in popularity within the last year. However, developers report key limitations including the accumulation of technical debt, security issues, and code churn to achieve satisfactory results. We argue that these pitfalls result from LLMs' inability to reconcile accumulating human-imposed constraints during vibe coding, with developers inadvertently failing to resolve contradictions because LLMs prioritize user commands over code consistency. Given LLMs' receptiveness to verification-based feedback, we argue that formal methods can mitigate these pitfalls, making vibe coding more reliable. However, we posit that integrating formal methods must transcend existing approaches that combine formal methods and LLMs. We advocate for a side-car system throughout the vibe coding process which: (1) \emph{Autoformalizes} specifications (2) Validates against targets, (3) Delivers \emph{actionable} feedback to the LLM, and (4) Allows intuitive developer influence on specifications.