AIRA: AI-Induced Risk Audit: A Structured Inspection Framework for AI-Generated Code

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17587v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:32:52 GMT
• Title: AIRA: AI-Induced Risk Audit: A Structured Inspection Framework for AI-Generated Code
• Abstract summary: Practitioners have reported a directional pattern in AI-assisted code generation: AI-generated code tends to fail quietly.<n>This paper introduces the Reward-Shaped Failure Hypothesis - the proposal that this pattern may reflect an artifact of optimization through human feedback.<n>We present AIRA, a deterministic 15-check inspection framework designed to detect failure-untruthful patterns in code.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Practitioners have reported a directional pattern in AI-assisted code generation: AI-generated code tends to fail quietly, preserving the appearance of functionality while degrading or concealing guarantees. This paper introduces the Reward-Shaped Failure Hypothesis - the proposal that this pattern may reflect an artifact of optimization through human feedback rather than a random distribution of bugs. We define failure truthfulness as the property that a system's observable outputs accurately represent its internal success or failure state. We then present AIRA (AI-Induced Risk Audit), a deterministic 15-check inspection framework designed to detect failure-untruthful patterns in code. We report results from three studies: (1) an anonymized enterprise environment audit, (2) a balanced 600-file public corpus pilot, and (3) a strict matched-control replication comparing 955 AI-attributed files against 955 human-control files. In the final replication, AI-attributed files show 0.435 high-severity findings per file versus 0.242 in human controls (1.80x). The effect is consistent across JavaScript, Python, and TypeScript, with strongest concentration in exception-handling-related patterns. These findings are consistent with a directional skew toward fail-soft behavior in AI-assisted code. AIRA is designed for governance, compliance, and safety-critical systems where fail-closed behavior is required.

Related papers

• Philosophical Dispositions as Behavioral Constraints for AI-Assisted Code Review: An Empirical Study [0.0]
  We present a system that constrains AI reviewer behavior through philosophical dispositions.<n>Each disposition is defined apophatically (by what it refuses to do)<n>We evaluate this system on 50 merged pull requests across 7 repositories spanning 5 programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T23:57:25Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• ABTest: Behavior-Driven Testing for AI Coding Agents [9.532350583164837]
  ABTest is a behavior-driven fuzzing framework that systematically tests AI coding agents.<n>We apply ABTest to three widely used coding agents: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI, and Gemini CLI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T17:52:37Z)
• Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
  DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z)
• Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
  We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Altered Thoughts, Altered Actions: Probing Chain-of-Thought Vulnerabilities in VLA Robotic Manipulation [27.2709460237741]
  Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models increasingly adopt chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, generating a natural-language plan before decoding motor commands.<n>We ask: which properties of this intermediate plan does the action decoder actually rely on, and can targeted corruption of the reasoning trace alone degrade a robot's physical task performance?<n>We design a taxonomy of seven text corruptions organized into three attacker tiers (blind noise, mechanical-semantic, and LLM-adaptive) and apply them to a state-of-the-art reasoning VLA across 40 tabletop manipulation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T07:02:51Z)
• Re-Evaluating EVMBench: Are AI Agents Ready for Smart Contract Security? [10.248746359119625]
  EVMbench is the first large-scale benchmark for AI agents on smart contract security.<n>Its results have fueled expectations that fully automated AI auditing is within reach.<n>These findings challenge the narrative that fully automated AI auditing is imminent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T14:07:16Z)
• The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity? [53.15349353876531]
  As AI becomes more capable, we entrust it with more general and consequential tasks.<n>We operationalize this question using a bias-variance decomposition of the errors made by AI models.<n>As more capable AIs pursue harder tasks, requiring more sequential action and thought, our results predict failures to be accompanied by more incoherent behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T14:52:03Z)
• Assimilation Matters: Model-level Backdoor Detection in Vision-Language Pretrained Models [71.44858461725893]
  Given a model fine-tuned by an untrusted third party, determining whether the model has been injected with a backdoor is a critical and challenging problem.<n>Existing detection methods usually rely on prior knowledge of training dataset, backdoor triggers and targets.<n>We introduce Assimilation Matters in DETection (AMDET), a novel model-level detection framework that operates without any such prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-29T06:20:00Z)
• Abduct, Act, Predict: Scaffolding Causal Inference for Automated Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems [20.846301581161978]
  Failure attribution in multi-agent systems is a critical yet unsolved challenge.<n>Current methods treat this as a pattern recognition task over long conversation logs.<n>A2P Scaffolding transforms failure attribution from pattern recognition into a structured causal inference task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T16:51:15Z)
• Auditing AI models for Verified Deployment under Semantic Specifications [65.12401653917838]
  AuditAI bridges the gap between interpretable formal verification and scalability. We show how AuditAI allows us to obtain controlled variations for verification and certified training while addressing the limitations of verifying using only pixel-space perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T22:53:24Z)

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.