On the Robustness of LLMs' Internal Representation of Code Correctness
Authors: Francisco Ribeiro, Sohaila Abdulsattar, Renata Gonzalez, Mahmoud Kassem, Sarah Nadi
Organizations: New York University Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.