Test Before You Deploy: Governing Updates in the LLM Supply Chain

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27789v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:32:13 GMT
• Title: Test Before You Deploy: Governing Updates in the LLM Supply Chain
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as core dependencies in software systems.<n>LLMs evolve continuously through provider-side updates without explicit version changes.<n>This paper proposes a deployment-side governance framework based on three components.
• Score: 3.6704226968275253
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as core dependencies in software systems. However, the hosted LLM services evolve continuously through provider-side updates without explicit version changes. These silent updates can introduce behavioral drift, causing regressions in functionality, formatting, safety constraints, or other application-specific requirements. Existing approaches focus primarily on regression testing or versioning but do not provide deployer-side mechanisms for governing compatibility during opaque model evolution. This paper proposes a deployment-side governance framework based on three components: clearly defined rules for how the model is allowed to behave (production contracts), focused testing organized by deployment risk categories (risk-category-based testing suite), and release checkpoints that block updates unless they meet defined safety and performance standards (compatibility gates). Through exploratory validation across multiple LLM versions, we provide evidence that targeted testing in specific risk areas can uncover performance regressions that overall metrics miss. We also identify several open research challenges, including how to systematically build effective test suites, how to set reliable performance thresholds in non-deterministic systems, and how to detect and explain model drift when providers offer limited transparency. Overall, we frame LLM update management as a software supply chain governance problem and outline a research agenda for putting deployer-side compatibility controls into practice.

Related papers

• SWE-Gate: Passing Functional Tests Is Not Enough for Software Engineering Agents [63.65682461568621]
  We introduce SWE-Gate, a repository-level benchmark for software engineering agents that explicitly evaluates review constraint compliance alongside functional correctness.<n>SWE-Gate derives review constraints from real pull request review comments and synthesizes repository-level repair instances around these constraints.<n>Each instance provides separate functional and constraint tests, together with non-compliant and gold patches, enabling explicit separation between issue resolution capability and review constraint compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T17:53:34Z)
• Silent Updates: Measuring and Closing the Post-Deployment Disclosure Gap [0.9927426295376472]
  We examine post-deployment disclosure practices across first-party API providers and inference hosts.<n>We introduce the Silent Updates Scorecard, a public instrument for measuring post-deployment disclosure practices.<n>We also propose a Three-Part Behavioral Trigger System for determining when post-deployment modifications to a system motivate disclosure or re-evaluation obligations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T08:45:49Z)
• Formal Verification of Agentic Systems over Operational Data [59.98246281888422]
  Agentic systems driven by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world where they act on persistent operational data.<n>Existing approaches do not provide such system-level guarantees.<n>We study here the verification of agentic systems comprising a single LLM and a tool orchestration harness over relational operational data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T13:01:30Z)
• Acceptance-Test-Driven Evaluation Protocols for Business-Centric LLM Systems [0.8557392136621891]
  This paper contributes an evaluation-protocol extension for operational large language model (LLM) systems grounded in acceptance-test-driven development.<n>It translates stakeholder goals into executable behavioral contracts, release gates, monitoring signals, and evidence artifacts before prompt, model, retrieval, or agent changes are accepted.<n>The contribution is a governance-oriented metric stack, reference architecture, and empirical protocol for comparing acceptance-test-driven LLM development against prompt-first and benchmark-after.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T18:21:10Z)
• A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities [36.43241368835721]
  We present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities.<n> Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:20:45Z)
• Attesting LLM Pipelines: Enforcing Verifiable Training and Release Claims [2.0403981727850233]
  Modern Large Language Model (LLM) systems are assembled from third-party artifacts such as pre-trained weights, fine-tuning adapters, datasets, dependency packages, and container images.<n>This speed comes with supply-chain risks, including compromised dependencies, malicious hub artifacts, unsafe dedefaultization, forged provenance, and backdoored models.<n>We propose an attestation-aware promotion gate: before an artifact is admitted into trusted environments, the gate verifies claim evidence, enforces safe loading and static scanning policies, and applies secure-by-serial deployment constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T20:37:48Z)
• Who Tests the Testers? Systematic Enumeration and Coverage Audit of LLM Agent Tool Call Safety [32.40159096400358]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly act through external tools, making their safety contingent on tool-call rather than text generation alone.<n>While recent benchmarks evaluate agents across diverse environments and risk categories, a fundamental question remains unanswered: how complete are existing test suites, and what unsafe interaction patterns persist even after an agent passes the benchmark?<n>We propose SafeAudit, a meta-audit framework that addresses this gap through two contributions. First, an enumerator that systematically generates test cases by enumerating valid tool-call and diverse user scenarios. Second, we introduce rule-resistance, a non-semantic, quantitative metric
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T20:06:47Z)
• A Trace-Based Assurance Framework for Agentic AI Orchestration: Contracts, Testing, and Governance [0.22940141855172028]
  This paper presents an assurance framework for Agentic AI systems using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Executions are instrumented as Message-Action Traces (MAT) with explicit step and trace contracts.<n>The framework includes stress testing, formulated as a budgeted counterexample search over bounded perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T10:23:48Z)
• 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)
• AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems [7.429835301272413]
  The framework includes fifteen failure-detection tools and two root-cause analysis modules.<n>It integrates lightweight rule-based checks with LLM-as-a-judge assessments to support structured incident detection, classification, and repair.<n>We applied the framework to IBM CUGA, evaluating its performance on the AppWorld and WebArena benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T14:55:35Z)
• RealSec-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Secure Code Generation in Real-World Repositories [58.32028251925354]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation, but their proficiency in producing secure code remains a critical, under-explored area.<n>We introduce RealSec-bench, a new benchmark for secure code generation meticulously constructed from real-world, high-risk Java repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T08:29:01Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agents [52.92354372596197]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly central to agentic systems due to their strong reasoning and planning capabilities.<n>This interaction also introduces the risk of prompt injection attacks, where malicious inputs from external sources can mislead the agent's behavior.<n>We propose a Dynamic Rule-based Isolation Framework for Trustworthy agentic systems, which enforces both control and data-level constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T05:01:09Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [71.7892165868749]
  Commercial Large Language Model (LLM) APIs create a fundamental trust problem.<n>Users pay for specific models but have no guarantee that providers deliver them faithfully.<n>We formalize this model substitution problem and evaluate detection methods under realistic adversarial conditions.<n>We propose and evaluate the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as one practical and robust solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Thinking Longer, Not Larger: Enhancing Software Engineering Agents via Scaling Test-Time Compute [61.00662702026523]
  We propose a unified Test-Time Compute scaling framework that leverages increased inference-time instead of larger models.<n>Our framework incorporates two complementary strategies: internal TTC and external TTC.<n>We demonstrate our textbf32B model achieves a 46% issue resolution rate, surpassing significantly larger models such as DeepSeek R1 671B and OpenAI o1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T07:31:32Z)
• BELLS: A Framework Towards Future Proof Benchmarks for the Evaluation of LLM Safeguards [43.86118338226387]
  We introduce the Benchmarks for the Evaluation of LLM Safeguards (BELLS) BELLS is a structured collection of tests, organized into three categories: established failure tests, emerging failure tests and next-gen architecture tests. We implement and share the first next-gen architecture test, using the MACHIAVELLI environment, along with an interactive visualization of the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T14:32:30Z)

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.