# arXiv cs.AI: Lean Proof Stability Under Program Refactoring [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-lean-proof-stability-under-program-refactoring-2233644d) 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 Lean-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 arXiv cs.AI · Article 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. - [How Stable Are LLM-Generated Proofs Under Program Refactoring? A Stress Test for Verifiable Code Generation](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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 - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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 - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Lean Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs. - [Explore this context](/entities/lean) - [Reference](https://lean-lang.org/) - [Reference](https://lean-lang.org/theorem_proving_in_lean4/Axioms-and-Computation/) ## 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 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 Lean-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 arXiv cs.AI · Article 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. - [How Stable Are LLM-Generated Proofs Under Program Refactoring? A Stress Test for Verifiable Code Generation](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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 - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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 - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36328) ## 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. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Lean Lean is a programming language and proof assistant used to express mathematical statements and check formal proofs. - [Explore this context](/entities/lean) - [Reference](https://lean-lang.org/) - [Reference](https://lean-lang.org/theorem_proving_in_lean4/Axioms-and-Computation/) ## 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. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/2233644de444fdb338322e1929c9916fc8b01746cd37e26fd55833a43bbb609d/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-lean-proof-stability-under-program-refactoring-2233644d.json)