TLAPS-Bench: Formally Proving Correctness with TLA+ Proof System
Comments on “TLAPS-Bench: Formally Proving Correctness with TLA+ Proof System”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
TLAPS-Bench is a benchmark and harness for having AI agents construct machine-checked TLA+ proofs of real-world system specifications, such as cache coherence, Byzantine consensus, and write-ahead logs. It includes 265 proof targets from 95 specifications, with safeguards against reward hacking.
Why it ranked
No. 91 of 137 with a score of 0.59. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.93) and technical depth (0.89), lowest on audience breadth (0.53). The judges disagreed most on substantiated (spread 0.40), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 91, No. 85 by score alone: the 37th AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.080). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Academic benchmark of AI agents proving TLA+ specs; substantive and technical, relevant to formal methods and AI-agent builders, but niche with some unverifiable model claims in text.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A technically deep benchmark and harness for machine-checked TLA+ proofs, with real-system specifications, integrity safeguards, reproducible evaluation details, and meaningful agent capability results. Its main limitation is that the excerpt omits full tables and appendices.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.59total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.40 on substantiated
- Significance0.59
- Reader interest0.68
- Audience breadth0.53
- Practical relevance0.54
- Substantiated0.77
- Technical depth0.89
- New information0.93
- Counts against: Promotional0.10
- Counts against: Overclaim0.24
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.58 | 0.40 | 0.78 | 0.59 | 0.38 | +0.24 | +0.141 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.93 | 0.68 | 0.38 | +0.26 | +0.178 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.68 | 0.53 | 0.33 | +0.13 | +0.068 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.32 | +0.22 | +0.119 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.95 | 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.40 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.039 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.16 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.07 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.05 | −0.19 | −0.018 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.21 | −0.11 | −0.027 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.591 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.591 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-04/91/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-04/91.svg" alt="Ranked #91 on Rubric, 4 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 4 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.