Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12039v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 17:58:48 GMT
• Title: Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering
• Abstract summary: We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
• Score: 78.51705689800838
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Software development follows an implementation-verification loop in which developers or agents iteratively revise an implementation until an evaluator, such as a test suite, accepts it. The evaluator checks the implementation against a set of requirements under a model of the deployment environment. Yet even a formal proof that the implementation satisfies the requirements under the model cannot guarantee acceptable behavior after deployment. Requirements only approximate stakeholder intent, and the model only approximates the real deployment environment. We call these together - requirement gap and model gap - the two-gap framework, which unifies the main failure modes of agentic software engineer-ing: reward hacking exploits omissions in the requirements or model, while hallucination widens the gaps by fabricating requirements or environment assumptions. Because neither gap can generally be certified closed in an open, changing world, the goal shifts from closing them to continuously narrowing them. We therefore propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator when stakeholders reject the resulting behavior. We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute. The two principal bottlenecks mirror the two gaps: human judgment for the requirement gap and faithful, costly evaluation for the model gap. Reality remains the final verifier: acceptable behavior under actual deployment conditions is the ultimate test, while predeployment evaluations remain proxies for it.

Related papers

• Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation [68.04679314462481]
  We formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s)<n>We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation.<n>Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T12:20:11Z)
• Do Models Fake Alignment Without Clear Consequences? [39.146761527401424]
  We show that large language models can recognize evaluation contexts and alter their behavior to reflect evaluator expectations.<n>Examples of alignment faking have taken place in scenarios that explicitly connect evaluation to consequences for the model.<n>We additionally tested the effect of goal language on model preferences, finding it drove violations in some while suppressing violations in others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T21:28:39Z)
• Do Coding Agents Understand Least-Privilege Authorization? [14.240332406666779]
  We study whether current models can infer authorization boundaries themselves.<n>We show that frontier models often omit permissions required by the execution chain while also granting unused or sensitive accesses.<n>We propose Sufficiency-Tightness Decomposition, which first generates a coverage-oriented policy and then audits each granted entry for grounding and sensitivity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T14:05:58Z)
• CellScientist: Dual-Space Hierarchical Orchestration for Closed-Loop Refinement of Virtual Cell Models [62.281480231694]
  Virtual Cell Modeling (VCM) requires models that not only predict perturbation responses, but also support targeted revision when predictions fail.<n>Current LLM-assisted modeling face a refinement-routing problem: prediction discrepancies are observed through executable implementations.<n>We propose CellScientist, a dual-space hierarchical framework that couples a high-level hypothesis space with a low-level executable implementation space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T06:40:24Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• From CRUD to Autonomous Agents: Formal Validation and Zero-Trust Security for Semantic Gateways in AI-Native Enterprise Systems [0.0]
  This paper proposes the design, formal validation, and empirical evaluation of a Semantic Gateway governed by the Model Context Protocol (MCP)<n>The gateway reframes the enterprise API as a semantic surface where tools are dynamically discovered, authorized, and executed based on intent and policy enforcement.<n>The architecture introduces a three-layer Zero-Trust security model comprising a pre-inference Semantic Firewall, deterministic Tool-Level RBAC, and out-of-band Cryptographic Human-in-the-Loop approval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T12:25:06Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• SpecEval: Evaluating Model Adherence to Behavior Specifications [63.13000010340958]
  We introduce an automated framework that audits models against their providers specifications.<n>Our central focus is on three way consistency between a provider specification, its model outputs, and its own models as judges.<n>We apply our framework to 16 models from six developers across more than 100 behavioral statements, finding systematic inconsistencies including compliance gaps of up to 20 percent across providers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:18:40Z)
• Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets [16.705988489763868]
  We introduce a procedure called recourse verification to test if a model assigns fixed predictions to its decision subjects. We conduct a comprehensive empirical study on the infeasibility of recourse on datasets from consumer finance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T14:24:04Z)

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.