Inferring Code Correctness from Specification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29822v1
• Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 12:04:51 GMT
• Title: Inferring Code Correctness from Specification
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale.<n>We propose TRAILS (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs.<n>We evaluate TRAILS on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39\% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.

Related papers

• ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation [54.788849448970154]
  We introduce ClarifyCodeBench, a novel interactive benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' capability in resolving requirement ambiguity.<n>We conduct a systematic evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs using ClarifyCodeBench.<n>Our empirical results yield three critical insights: 1) Capability Decoupling: Strong code generation performance does not inherently translate to effective requirement clarification; 2) The Reasoning Paradox: While increased computational thinking enhances code correctness, it yields marginal gains in identifying ambiguities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T09:58:59Z)
• DuET: Dual Execution for Test Output Prediction with Generated Code and Pseudocode [56.14374797825548]
  We introduce LLM-based pseudocode execution, which grounds prediction on more error-resilient pseudocode.<n>We propose DuET, a dual-execution framework that combines both approaches by functional majority voting.<n>On LiveCodeBench, DuET achieves the state-of-the-art performance, improving Pass@1 by 13.6 pp.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T14:18:58Z)
• Can LLMs Compress (and Decompress)? Evaluating Code Understanding and Execution via Invertibility [36.41073880422337]
  We present RoundTripCodeEval (RTCE), a comprehensive benchmark consisting of four distinct code execution reasoning tasks.<n>We systematically evaluate state-of-the-art Code-LLMs using zero-shot prompting, supervised fine-tuning on execution traces, and self-reflection mechanisms.<n>RTCE surfaces several new and previously unmeasured insights that are not captured by existing I/O-prediction, execution-reasoning, or round-trip natural-language benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T21:09:48Z)
• Verbatim Data Transcription Failures in LLM Code Generation: A State-Tracking Stress Test [1.8875967655304022]
  Many real-world software tasks require exact transcription of provided data into code.<n>Small omissions or alterations can remain silent while producing syntactically valid programs.<n>This paper introduces a deliberately minimal transcription-to-code benchmark to isolate this reliability concern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T06:38:34Z)
• Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank [71.09032766271493]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to errors and hallucinations.<n>How to check their outputs effectively and efficiently has become a critical problem in their applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T11:01:10Z)
• IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generation [69.28317223249358]
  The paper introduces forward and backward constraints generation to improve the instruction-following capabilities of Code LLMs.<n>The authors present IFEvalCode, a multilingual benchmark comprising 1.6K test samples across seven programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:08:48Z)
• Zero-Shot Detection of LLM-Generated Code via Approximated Task Conditioning [8.571111167616165]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-generated code is a growing challenge with implications for security, intellectual property, and academic integrity.<n>We investigate the role of conditional probability distributions in improving zero-shot LLM-generated code detection.<n>We propose a novel zero-shot detection approach that approximates the original task used to generate a given code snippet.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T13:23:37Z)
• Uncertainty-Guided Chain-of-Thought for Code Generation with LLMs [45.33160999781074]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been demonstrated as an effective technique for improving the problem-solving capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce UnCert-CoT, an approach designed to enhance code generation by incorporating an uncertainty-aware CoT reasoning mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T15:40:45Z)
• Evaluating and Aligning CodeLLMs on Human Preference [42.26173776584043]
  We present a rigorous human-curated benchmark CodeArena to emulate the complexity and diversity of real-world coding tasks.<n>We also propose a diverse synthetic instruction corpus SynCode-Instruct to verify the effectiveness of the large-scale synthetic instruction fine-tuning.<n>The results find performance differences between execution-based benchmarks and CodeArena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T17:40:38Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reasoning [6.819757372634151]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to automate programming tasks.<n>This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:24:46Z)
• GRACE: Discriminator-Guided Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [75.35436025709049]
  We propose Guiding chain-of-thought ReAsoning with a CorrectnEss Discriminator (GRACE) to steer the decoding process towards producing correct reasoning steps. GRACE employs a discriminator trained with a contrastive loss over correct and incorrect steps, which is used during decoding to score next-step candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T09:16:51Z)

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.