Mandiga, Aravind, Li, Guoming · Oct 26, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Lean Proof Stability Under Program Refactoring
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Authors Aravind Mandiga and Guoming Li introduce RefactorProof to test whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. They derive 458 -certified variants from 185 VERINA tasks that compile in their pinned environment, holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte. The authors report task-normalized structural PSR of 4.3% for supplied references and 13.3–26.8% for specialized provers. On matched tasks, specialized prover proofs had higher overall unchanged-proof survival than supplied reference artifacts: the reported gains were 15.6 points for DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B, 18.8 for Goedel-Prover-V2-32B, and 20.3 for Goedel-Prover-V2-8B. They say the ordering persists under several alternative analyses. The authors distinguish unchanged-proof failure from repair cost: predefined one-identifier edits repaired many eligible failures. RefactorProof measures unchanged-proof stability under program refactoring, not the cost of maintaining a proof after it breaks. The comparisons cover a limited set of short, non-recursive tasks; whether the results extend to a broader range of tasks and refactorings remains open.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 26, 2026 (2026-10-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T04:24:42.575Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-29T20:32:17.373Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The primary model-versus-reference comparisons match only 21–25 short, non-recursive tasks; the evidence does not establish whether the results generalize to broader tasks or refactorings. RefactorProof measures unchanged-proof stability under program refactoring, not the cost of maintaining a proof after it breaks.
Open question
How well would the comparison between specialized prover proofs and supplied references hold across a broader range of tasks and refactorings?
Source-stated
The authors introduce RefactorProof to evaluate whether proofs remain valid after behavior-preserving program refactoring.
We ask whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. We introduce RefactorProof
Source-stated
RefactorProof derives 458 Lean-certified variants from 185 VERINA tasks that compile in the authors' pinned environment, while holding specifications and evaluated proofs fixed byte-for-byte.
derives 458 Lean-certified variants from the 185 VERINA tasks that compile in our pinned environment while holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte.
Source-stated
Task-normalized structural PSR was 4.3% for supplied reference proofs and 13.3–26.8% for specialized provers.
task-normalized structural PSR is 4.3% for the supplied references and 13.3-26.8% for the specialized provers.
Source-stated
On matched tasks, specialized prover proofs had higher overall unchanged-proof survival than supplied reference artifacts, with gains of 15.6, 18.8, and 20.3 points for three models.
+15.6 points for DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B, +18.8 for Goedel-Prover-V2-32B, and +20.3 for Goedel-Prover-V2-8B
Source-stated
The authors caution that unchanged-proof failure is not the same as repair cost; predefined one-identifier edits repaired many eligible failures.
predefined one-identifier edits repair 51/54 eligible reference structural failures and 58/85 eligible prover failures.
Source and contributor context
Mandiga, Aravind, Li, Guoming · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Lean
Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: ba2790d9-3297-46bd-8d49-1d00aa7828e0.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: ef222b9b66039abd8f7ef07e4398f8ce8ffb91587515885fafddae4902080b81. Source text hash: 4f167237f1901131c603609a88238f3adf463d79d31058e6adeab6a1c5874683.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z
arXiv cs.AI: Lean Proof Stability Under Program Refactoring
Authors Aravind Mandiga and Guoming Li introduce RefactorProof to test whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. They derive 458 -certified variants from 185 VERINA tasks that compile in their pinned environment, holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte. The authors report task-normalized structural PSR of 4.3% for supplied references and 13.3–26.8% for specialized provers. On matched tasks, specialized prover proofs had higher overall unchanged-proof survival than supplied reference artifacts: the reported gains were 15.6 points for DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B, 18.8 for Goedel-Prover-V2-32B, and 20.3 for Goedel-Prover-V2-8B. They say the ordering persists under several alternative analyses. The authors distinguish unchanged-proof failure from repair cost: predefined one-identifier edits repaired many eligible failures. RefactorProof measures unchanged-proof stability under program refactoring, not the cost of maintaining a proof after it breaks. The comparisons cover a limited set of short, non-recursive tasks; whether the results extend to a broader range of tasks and refactorings remains open.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 26, 2026 (2026-10-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T04:24:42.575Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-29T20:32:17.373Z.
Limits
The primary model-versus-reference comparisons match only 21–25 short, non-recursive tasks; the evidence does not establish whether the results generalize to broader tasks or refactorings. RefactorProof measures unchanged-proof stability under program refactoring, not the cost of maintaining a proof after it breaks.
Open question
How well would the comparison between specialized prover proofs and supplied references hold across a broader range of tasks and refactorings?
Source-stated
The authors introduce RefactorProof to evaluate whether proofs remain valid after behavior-preserving program refactoring.
We ask whether the same proof remains valid after a program refactoring that preserves behavior. We introduce RefactorProof
Source-stated
RefactorProof derives 458 Lean-certified variants from 185 VERINA tasks that compile in the authors' pinned environment, while holding specifications and evaluated proofs fixed byte-for-byte.
derives 458 Lean-certified variants from the 185 VERINA tasks that compile in our pinned environment while holding the specification and evaluated proof fixed byte-for-byte.
Source-stated
Task-normalized structural PSR was 4.3% for supplied reference proofs and 13.3–26.8% for specialized provers.
task-normalized structural PSR is 4.3% for the supplied references and 13.3-26.8% for the specialized provers.
Source-stated
On matched tasks, specialized prover proofs had higher overall unchanged-proof survival than supplied reference artifacts, with gains of 15.6, 18.8, and 20.3 points for three models.
+15.6 points for DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B, +18.8 for Goedel-Prover-V2-32B, and +20.3 for Goedel-Prover-V2-8B
Source-stated
The authors caution that unchanged-proof failure is not the same as repair cost; predefined one-identifier edits repaired many eligible failures.
predefined one-identifier edits repair 51/54 eligible reference structural failures and 58/85 eligible prover failures.
Source and contributor context
Mandiga, Aravind, Li, Guoming · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Lean
Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: ba2790d9-3297-46bd-8d49-1d00aa7828e0.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: ef222b9b66039abd8f7ef07e4398f8ce8ffb91587515885fafddae4902080b81. Source text hash: 4f167237f1901131c603609a88238f3adf463d79d31058e6adeab6a1c5874683.
uncertain · 2026-11-05T15:16:50.686Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: ba2790d9-3297-46bd-8d49-1d00aa7828e0
attribution — pass: The reading correctly attributes RefactorProof and its results to authors Aravind Mandiga and Guoming Li on arXiv cs.AI. It frames the findings as the authors' reports.
Authors:Aravind Mandiga, Guoming Li
summary — uncertain: The central metric 'task-normalized structural PSR' is never explained, and the source excerpt does not define it. A general reader cannot tell whether 4.3% versus 13.3–26.8% is good or bad. Lean, VERINA, 'specialized provers' and 'refactoring' are also unexplained; add term-library tooltips. The phrase 'repaired many eligible failures' flattens a notable contrast: 51/54 reference failures versus 58/85 prover failures. Smallest repair: restore both fractions, and state that the source does not define PSR. The title and question are otherwise faithful.
Structural refactorings expose substantial brittleness across proof sources: task-normalized structural PSR is 4.3% for the supplied references and 13.3-26.8% for the specialized provers.
date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-10-26 matches the v1 submission date. The later feed date was correctly not used.
[Submitted on 26 Oct 2026]
support — pass: Each claim, including the figures, the 21–25 matched-task limitation and the scope caveat, is supported verbatim by the abstract. The open question follows from the stated limitation. No unsupported benefits or costs are implied.
the primary model-versus-reference comparisons further match on 21-25 short, non-recursive tasks
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page. This is the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs.
Explore LeanarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivLean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs.
Explore LeanarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv