arXiv preprint ·
Verified but Vacuous: Three Failure Surfaces of LLM-Driven Verified Code Generation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
What should ``verified'' mean when evaluating LLM-generated code? Many existing pipelines report a single verification number. We argue this collapses three distinct properties measured in a conditional audit sequence: verifier acceptance (Surface A), \emph{syntactic specification binding (Surface B: does the proof obligation bind to the spec?), and \emph{semantic specification fidelity} (Surface C: does the spec capture the informal requirement?). Two empirical demonstrations show the surfaces separate. \textbf{First ($A \neq B$), via Li@Opus (a same-model reproduction of \citet{li2025dafny}'s Dafny-as-intermediate-representation (IR) pipeline under Claude Opus 4.7) on three Python benchmarks}: it reaches \textbf{99.1\% verifier acceptance} on HumanEval while only \textbf{1.9\%} carry a certificate binding to a spec-defined predicate or function. \textbf{Second ($B \neq C$), via VCG on two Rust benchmarks}: we use VCG (which is our own in-house Dafny-as-intermediate pipeline) on Rust because the Rust target lets us enforce fully-verifiable output (every component ships as a Dafny certificate, ensures-binding gate passing by construction). Even inside that construction, \textbf{11.48\% (MBPP-Rust) and 14.82\% (VeriContest LC slice) of structurally-verified samples still fail hidden tests}. On the LC slice of VeriContest, \textbf{VCG's reported End2End rate is 7.79\% (535/6870).} The cited external rates are 5.51\% (GPT-5.5) and 1.88\% (single-shot Opus 4.7). These give descriptive differences of 2.3 percentage points and 4.14$\times$, respectively; task-budget, repair and harness differences prevent a matched-performance claim.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
BobFlow: Towards Human-Agent Collaborative Data Science Using Dataflows
The Agent Board: Kanban for Machines; Durable Coordination for Agents That Outlive the Conversation
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
Structured Clinical Memory as Context for Probabilistic Decision Models: A Synthetic Evaluation with Jev
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.