Cycle-Consistent Neural Explanation of Formal Verification Certificates

We present a framework for verifying the deterministic structured computations surrounding a large language model rather than the model itself, extending a Lean 4 trust-boundary architecture to the generic interfaces of modern LLM pipelines. Certificate validity is a Lean 4 kernel type-check plus a sorry-free transitive axiom audit against the trusted set {propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound}; other assumptions are declared and partitioned by tier (mathematical placeholders, cryptographic assumptions, ML/human oracles). The technical contribution comprises three local certificate families and two operators. The families are conflict-aware bilattice grounding (with an emission-gate soundness lemma), embedding sensitivity and paraphrase stability, and Hoare-style agent action. The operators are a Maximal Certifiable Residue, which turns abstention into the maximum-weight certifiable residue with audit-logged dropped claims, and a Compositional Stability theorem, which yields a closed-form pipeline-wide perturbation budget from per-layer gains and margins. The three families plus a Universal Assurance Card consolidator form the per-call deliverable for high-stakes deployments: patent and legal retrieval, regulated finance, clinical decision support, and agentic systems with irreversible side effects. A compiled Lean 4 reference artifact (Lean v4.30.0-rc2, Mathlib) covers all 22 certificate types, with 17 of 46 kernel-audited declarations axiom-free, the rest depending only on the trusted set and declared assumptions, and zero uses of sorryAx or Lean.ofReduceBool. The three families are empirically tested through four registered pilots: bilattice grounding on adversarially perturbed HotpotQA, embedding sensitivity in short- and long-form settings, and Hoare-style agent action on a filesystem sandbox with adversarial prompt injection.

Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.

Natural-language autoencoders score explanations of hidden activations by reconstruction: an explanation is deemed faithful if the activation can be regenerated from it. The test is structurally insensitive to individual false claims: if flipping a claim does not change the reconstruction, the claim is never penalized. We show the test is passed in two ways, neither faithful. On a released Qwen-2.5-7B verbalizer, explanations reconstruct well above chance while ~2% of specific claims are reconstruction-dependent, so the score tracks gist, not specific facts. Under exact synthetic ground truth, the standard recipe develops co-adapted private codes (false wording the reconstruction depends on) in 5/5 runs, and fixes that leave the target model unchanged do not help. We contribute two audit protocols, the grounded-vs-true cross and the evaluator swap, and RECAP (Readable Encodings via Co-trained Auxiliary Predictors): linear heads trained alongside the target model to keep designated content decodable. On RECAP-trained sandbox models, fresh verbalizers state the designated content truly and the codes vanish, at a +0.001-nat cost. This replicates on a pretrained Pythia-160M: the content becomes reliably probe-decodable, though a fresh verbalizer conveys it only in part (truth 0.44-0.46 vs a near-zero control). For interpretability, high reconstruction does not certify individual claims. For AI safety, RECAP makes designated internal content independently checkable against probes rather than asserted by prose a model can game: an independent probe scores the verbalizer's true claims above its false ones (AUC 0.96, vs 0.82 without RECAP). Against an adversary that edits an explanation to maximize the reconstruction score while lying (suppressing ~87% of its lie penalty), the RECAP probe still flags the lies (AUC 0.95) while the control probe collapses to chance (0.51).