Do LLMs Trust the Code They Write?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07404v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2025 10:38:03 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs Trust the Code They Write?
• Authors: Francisco Ribeiro, Claudio Spiess, Prem Devanbu, Sarah Nadi,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores if large language models (LLMs) similarly represent code correctness.<n>We identify a correctness representation inside LLMs by contrasting the hidden states between pairs of correct and incorrect code for the same programming tasks.<n>We show that exploiting this extracted correctness representation outperforms standard log-likelihood ranking, as well as verbalized model confidence.
• Score: 1.0344061385065657
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) for code generation, they often output incorrect code. One reason is that model output probabilities are often not well-correlated with correctness, and reflect only the final output of the generation process. Inspired by findings that LLMs internally encode concepts like truthfulness, this paper explores if LLMs similarly represent code correctness. Specifically, we identify a correctness representation inside LLMs by contrasting the hidden states between pairs of correct and incorrect code for the same programming tasks. By experimenting on four LLMs, we show that exploiting this extracted correctness representation outperforms standard log-likelihood ranking, as well as verbalized model confidence. Furthermore, we explore how this internal correctness signal can be used to select higher-quality code samples, without requiring test execution. Ultimately, this work demonstrates how leveraging internal representations can enhance code generation systems and make LLMs more reliable, thus improving confidence in automatically generated code.

Related papers

• The Fools are Certain; the Wise are Doubtful: Exploring LLM Confidence in Code Completion [4.215010577170175]
  We evaluate the confidence of Large Language Models (LLMs) when generating code by measuring code perplexity.<n>We find that strongly-typed languages exhibit lower perplexity than dynamically typed languages.<n> Perl appears universally high in perplexity, whereas Java appears low.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T06:51:13Z)
• LLM4VV: Evaluating Cutting-Edge LLMs for Generation and Evaluation of Directive-Based Parallel Programming Model Compiler Tests [7.6818904666624395]
  This paper proposes a dual-LLM system and experiments with the usage of LLMs for the generation of compiler tests.<n>It is evident that LLMs possess the promising potential to generate quality compiler tests and verify them automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T02:34:28Z)
• CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks [63.562924932512765]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks.<n>LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:56:29Z)
• Factual Self-Awareness in Language Models: Representation, Robustness, and Scaling [56.26834106704781]
  Factual incorrectness in generated content is one of the primary concerns in ubiquitous deployment of large language models (LLMs)<n>We provide evidence supporting the presence of LLMs' internal compass that dictate the correctness of factual recall at the time of generation.<n>Scaling experiments across model sizes and training dynamics highlight that self-awareness emerges rapidly during training and peaks in intermediate layers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T16:24:02Z)
• How Accurately Do Large Language Models Understand Code? [4.817546726074033]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in post-development tasks such as code repair and testing.<n> Quantifying code comprehension is challenging due to its abstract nature and the lack of a standardized metric.<n>This paper presents the first large-scale empirical investigation into LLMs' ability to understand code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T05:59:29Z)
• Showing LLM-Generated Code Selectively Based on Confidence of LLMs [44.23673533981599]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in code generation, but they may generate erroneous programs. Showing these erroneous programs to developers will waste developers' energies and introduce security risks. We propose HonestCoder, a novel LLM-based code generation approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T08:51:31Z)
• Assured LLM-Based Software Engineering [51.003878077888686]
  This paper is an outline of the content of the keynote by Mark Harman at the International Workshop on Interpretability, Robustness, and Benchmarking in Neural Software Engineering, Monday 15th April 2024, Lisbon, Portugal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T20:38:46Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models [79.01926242857613]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, generating content that deviates from facts seen during pretraining. We propose a simple decoding strategy for reducing hallucinations with pretrained LLMs. We find that this Decoding by Contrasting Layers (DoLa) approach is able to better surface factual knowledge and reduce the generation of incorrect facts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:45:31Z)
• Coarse-Tuning Models of Code with Reinforcement Learning Feedback [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) pre-trained on code have emerged as the dominant approach to program synthesis. We propose RLCF, that further trains a pre-trained LLM via reinforcement learning, using feedback from a grounding function that scores the quality of the code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T22:09:08Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.