Can LLMs model real-world systems in TLA+?
mad
64 points
9 comments
May 08, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 89.6ms across 8,303 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- TLA+ Mental Models r4um · 15 pts · March 23, 2026 · 67% similar
- Let's talk about LLMs cdrnsf · 153 pts · May 04, 2026 · 62% similar
- LLMorphism: When humans come to see themselves as language models okey · 75 pts · May 10, 2026 · 61% similar
- LLMs are breaking 20 year old system design zknill · 30 pts · May 14, 2026 · 60% similar
- Thoughts on LLMs – Psychological Complications cdrnsf · 11 pts · March 24, 2026 · 59% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
dgacmu
This post reads like an accidental advertisement for approaches like Verus [1], which couple the implementation and verification so you can't end up with a model that diverges from the actual implementation. I'm personally much more optimistic about the verus approach, but I freely admit that's my builder bias speaking. [1] https://github.com/verus-lang/verus
tmaly
I remember NVIDA sponsored a TLA+ challenge last year https://foundation.tlapl.us/challenge/index.html
tombert
Claude has certainly been getting better with TLA+. It's not perfect yet but for laughs I got it to model the rules of Monopoly last night [1]. I haven't done any exhaustive checking on it yet, but it certainly looks passable. It is pretty impressive at how good it's gotten at this, in a relatively short amount of time no less. I still usually write my specs by hand, but who knows how much longer I'll be doing that. [1] https://pdfhost.io/v/KU2j37YKrP_Monopoly
iFire
I don't use tla+ to model real-world systems anymore, Claude is able to model systems in Lean 4 and the binary executable can handle real input or I can directly generate c / rust on proofs with numeric types that have ring structure (integers, rationals, bits). https://github.com/lambdaclass/truth_research_zk
atomicnature
Just a question to people who may know better than me about this. I thought the whole point of trying to write out TLA+ is so that you get a better idea of what you want and put it into formal language? I get that an LLM can assist/help with expressing what we want in formal language a bit, but if one automates all this there is no human intent/design anymore. If the LLM generates both the design (TLA+) and writes an arbitrary program that satisfies said design -- what exactly have we proved? What assurance do humans get since human doesn't know or cannot specify what they want.
pzoln
Sorry, must be a very naive question, but what if you give LLM just a source code (maybe even obfuscate the names like Raft and Etcd) and ask it to create a TLA+ spec of that?