Abstract
Large language models encode rich information in their hidden states. This work asks whether the correctness of code that Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 has not yet generated is already legible in its hidden states, evaluated on a set of 444 tasks from LiveCodeBench. The correctness of the model's first-attempt code is linearly decodable from the hidden state at the final prompt token, captured before any output token is generated, with a leakage-free held-out AUC of 0.881 +/- 0.008 across 50 outer splits. To assess whether this signal is explained by prompt length, each hidden state dimension is residualized with respect to its linear effect. The probe still achieves an AUC of 0.842 +/- 0.010, substantially above a logistic prompt-length baseline of 0.657 +/- 0.014, and none of the nonlinear models tested improves upon it. A companion question about whether self-repair leaves a geometric signature in the model's hidden states could not be answered, because successful repairs following a failed first attempt are too rare in this setting to support the analysis. The contribution is both empirical and methodological, providing evidence that pre-generation hidden states contain a robust signal of eventual code correctness, together with a confound-control diagnostic that quantifies how much of that signal survives adjustment for prompt length.
Explore similar work
Aug 8, 2026cs.SE
Code generated by modern language models often reads naturally. Yet, it also often fails to implement what was asked. This should be no surprise, as research shows the models' own confidence signals are poorly calibrated with actual correctness. A promising way to assess correctness looks inside the model: by contrasting the hidden states of correct and incorrect programs, recent work captured an internal signal of code correctness that is able to judge candidate solutions better than the model's token-level or stated confidence, with no test execution. However, this signal was captured under one particular way, leaving open an important question: whether it reflects a robust property of the model or an artifact of that choice. We study this question systematically, varying how the signal is extracted from the model internals. Besides this, we also ask if the signal's quality is limited by the data used to extract it, by constructing program pairs that differ only in the fault that makes them incorrect. Our results show that no single configuration is best, and that isolating the fault does not help.
Francisco Ribeiro, Sohaila Abdulsattar, Renata Gonzalez +2
Jul 5, 2026cs.SE
Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks. We evaluate code language models across four experiments designed to assess whether models resist or obey incorrect instructions in single-pass and iterative repair settings, using the RunBugRun dataset of algorithmic Python problems with deterministic test cases. Our findings reveal a striking behavioral pattern: models correctly identify an incorrect instruction as wrong, then follow it anyway. This compliance unknowingly introduces errors beyond the original bug, and the corrupted code state cannot be recovered through subsequent self-guided iterative repair, which fails to converge across passes. We term this Blind Obedience, characterize the Ghost (Unknown) Errors it introduces, quantify the proportion of cases where semantic corruption proves irrecoverable, and show that extended reasoning cannot reverse it. These findings surface behavioral properties invisible to pass-rate evaluation, with direct consequences for code language models deployed in production settings.
Raj Jaiswal, Anany Singh Divy, Savar Bhasin +3
Aug 31, 2026cs.AI
When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.
Qiyao Yan, Chenpeng Wang, Liangming Pan