Falsification-Based Verification of LLM-Generated Optimization Models: Sound Test Batteries and Their Detection Limits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16646v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 05:32:37 GMT
• Title: Falsification-Based Verification of LLM-Generated Optimization Models: Sound Test Batteries and Their Detection Limits
• Abstract summary: Large language models translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, but they fail silently.<n>This paper develops a theory of falsification-based verification for this setting.<n>Every numeric quantity in the description is a typed slot, and a candidate model is tested only through solver calls on slot-transformed instances.
• Score: 1.7545090618311434
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models now translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, but they fail silently. A generated model often runs and still formulates the wrong problem. This paper develops a theory of falsification-based verification for this setting. Every numeric quantity in the description is a typed slot, and a candidate model is tested only through solver calls on slot-transformed instances; no reference model or label is consulted. From duality, comparative statics, and polyhedral limit arguments we derive a battery of test classes covering directions, curvature, crush probes, prohibitive limits, annihilation, and exchange. Every test is sound, so a violation certifies unfaithfulness and the false-positive rate is zero by design. We characterize what such verification can never see, give conditions under which the canonical error classes are detected with certainty, and prove that no fixed-threshold perturbation tester is simultaneously sound and nontrivial. Experiments on 326 ground-truth models from NL4OPT and four benchmark families confirm the theory. The battery attains a 0.0% false-positive rate against 54.9% for a threshold tester, detects 70.0% of certified conditional-class mutants, convicts 40.4% of the mutants invisible to execution-accuracy scoring, and reproduces the predicted detectability pattern including its zeros.

Related papers

• The Model Proposes, the Code Disposes: A Pre-Registered Ablation of a Verifier-and-Acceptance Stage in an LLM-Orchestrated Offensive-Security Agent [0.0]
  We evaluate whether a verifier-and-acceptance stage - a model verifier whose verdicts are enforced by deterministic code - changes what an LLM-driven offensive-security agent reports.<n>We report a 15-run exploratory pilot, a pre-registered 20-run confirmatory ablation, and a pre-registered 2 x 2 factorial study with 40 runs across two deliberately vulnerable lab targets.<n>The results support a narrow conclusion: the verifier changes what the system ships, while deterministic code supplies enforcement and auditability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:13:05Z)
• IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications [52.570108663867046]
  A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation.<n>We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions.<n>We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T17:59:04Z)
• Conformalized Large Language Models under Configuration Shift [46.502741608809174]
  Conformal prediction is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification.<n>Nonconformity scores are often induced by an inference pipeline, not just a fixed model.<n>We show that configuration shift consistently erodes CP validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T19:34:41Z)
• A Paired Testing Protocol for Batch-Conditioned Refusal Robustness in LLM Serving [0.0]
  Safety evaluations of language models often treat serving configuration as fixed background infrastructure.<n>We synthesize four artifact-backed studies into a paired testing protocol.<n>Standard vLLM reproduces 22/55 label flips on current score-flip candidates, while enabling VLLM_BATCH_INIANT=1 reduces the same test to 0/55 flips.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T23:22:55Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• When the Ruler is Broken: Parsing-Induced Suppression in LLM-Based Security Log Evaluation [0.0]
  We demonstrate a class of silent, systematic evaluation errors that can cause a fully functional model to appear completely non-functional categories.<n>We propose SOC-Bench v0, a benchmark framework comprising a standardized 13 category threat taxonomy, minimum statistical power requirements, fuzzy field extraction specification, and a public scoring script intended to prevent specific accuracy distortion in future SOC research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T06:03:11Z)
• Verbal Confidence Saturation in 3-9B Open-Weight Instruction-Tuned LLMs: A Pre-Registered Psychometric Validity Screen [0.0]
  We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria.<n>We found Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity.<n> Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T04:45:21Z)
• The Verification Tax: Fundamental Limits of AI Auditing in the Rare-Error Regime [0.0]
  Most cited calibration result in deep learning -- post-temperature-scaling ECE of 0.012 on CIFAR-100 -- is below the statistical noise floor.<n>We prove this is not a failure of the experiment but a law: the minimax rate for estimating calibration error with model error rate epsilon is Theta((Lepsilon/m)2/3), and no estimator can beat it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T16:48:24Z)
• Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification [116.77055746066375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. We propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:44:17Z)
• GPT-HateCheck: Can LLMs Write Better Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection? [50.53312866647302]
  HateCheck is a suite for testing fine-grained model functionalities on synthesized data. We propose GPT-HateCheck, a framework to generate more diverse and realistic functional tests from scratch. Crowd-sourced annotation demonstrates that the generated test cases are of high quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T10:02:01Z)
• T-Cal: An optimal test for the calibration of predictive models [49.11538724574202]
  We consider detecting mis-calibration of predictive models using a finite validation dataset as a hypothesis testing problem. detecting mis-calibration is only possible when the conditional probabilities of the classes are sufficiently smooth functions of the predictions. We propose T-Cal, a minimax test for calibration based on a de-biased plug-in estimator of the $ell$-Expected Error (ECE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T16:58:54Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)

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.