Fidelity Probes for Specification--Code Alignment

Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions. A popular fix has the model write its own tests and repair until they pass, but the source of the gain is unclear: does it come from the tests merely existing, or from their grounding in a specification of what the code should do? We isolate this factor. Holding the tester, test budget, and repair loop fixed, we change a single prompt line that controls whether the tester receives the spec as a checklist of rules. The baseline is strong: it is already told to probe invalid inputs and edge cases. Grounding the tests in the spec produces correct code +38 percentage points more often than this baseline across three Claude tiers (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8), and +36 points on a held-out set. Grounding, not test quantity, is the primary driver: doubling the test budget barely helps, and combining eight independent ungrounded suites plateaus far below grounding. An ablation isolates the spec's content, not its format: given the spec as a plain paragraph the tester recovers 27 of 30 bugs, but asked to plan tests without the spec it recovers only 2 of 30. The effect survives stronger baselines: a property-based generator catches 28 of 30 bugs but invents out-of-spec requirements, and an AlphaCodium-style loop only matches the baseline. It replicates across vendors (GPT-5.3-codex +28, Gemini 3.5 Flash +19), with a task-level sign test over 18 tasks significant at p=0.002. Grounding improves both sensitivity and precision: it catches more real bugs and wrongly rejects far less correct code, cutting the false-alarm rate from 33% (68% against a Python standard-library oracle) to 0%. On well-specified algorithmic problems it neither helps nor hurts.

Unlike natural-language specifications, executable formal specifications provide machine-checkable constraints for verifying, debugging, and repairing code. However, writing such specifications is labor-intensive, and existing LLM-based methods mainly infer whole-program pre/postconditions, missing the intermediate semantic commitments that programmers rely on when reasoning about an algorithm. Our study further shows that prompting current CodeLLMs often produces executable assertions that are syntactically invalid, trivial, or too weak to reject behavior-changing faults. In this paper, we study executable checkpoint specification generation, where assertions are inserted at meaningful internal program points to describe expected intermediate states. We introduce SpecCoder, a verification-guided CodeLLM training framework that learns from validated reference programs, behavior-changing mutants, and multi-turn specification-refinement traces. SpecCoder selects specifications that hold on correct executions while rejecting faulty executions, turning specifications from passive annotations into executable evidence. To evaluate this setting, we introduce HumanExec, a benchmark built from recent Codeforces competitive programming problems with test suites, reference solutions, and human buggy submissions, supporting three tasks: specification generation, program correctness checking, and program repair. Experiments on HumanExec show that SpecCoder substantially improves checkpoint-specification quality over base CodeLLMs. Across Qwen2.5-Coder models, SpecCoder improves inline-specification correctness by up to 55.8%, completeness by up to 358.1%, and executable assertion validity by up to 26.6%. These gains further translate to downstream correctness reasoning and repair, showing that executable checkpoints provide fine-grained evidence for reliable verification.

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.