Fidelity Probes for Specification--Code Alignment
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866914574882570240 |
|---|---|
| author | Erata, Ferhat Zhou, Hao Huan, Luke |
| author_facet | Erata, Ferhat Zhou, Hao Huan, Luke |
| contents | We introduce fidelity probes: natural-language questions generated from a reference artifact with code-derived ground-truth answers, answered from a candidate specification. The fraction of agreeing probes, which we call the fidelity, decomposes into contradiction and coverage-gap rates that drive targeted spec edits to convergence. On a 15-program, roughly 12k-line COBOL benchmark (AWS CardDemo), we raise frozen-test specification fidelity from 0.63 to 0.94 over eight iterations, with the plateau location predicted by a two-state Markov fixed point $F^\dagger$ from just four iterations of rate data. Probes come from an LLM reading the code or from a static-analysis pipeline over its control-flow, data-flow, and system-dependence graphs, with a tunable mixture. A probe-resampling protocol with a frozen held-out set gives a Hoeffding-bounded overfitting discriminant; our measured train/test gap stays more than an order of magnitude below this envelope. Three graph-grounded mixtures lift fidelity by +16 to +30 points; cross-distribution evaluation shows the LLM and symbolic channels are empirically complementary. A cross-family generator sweep on five independent LLM lineages (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, Alibaba, OpenAI) confirms the convergence behaviour is not tied to any single model family: three of five non-Claude generators produce trajectories consistent with the Markov fixed-point prediction, and the frozen-test protocol actively falsifies the two generators whose probe distributions drift across iterations. The method applies to any pair of artifacts that are supposed to describe the same behaviour. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_17246 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Fidelity Probes for Specification--Code Alignment Erata, Ferhat Zhou, Hao Huan, Luke Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence D.2.4; I.2.7; G.3 We introduce fidelity probes: natural-language questions generated from a reference artifact with code-derived ground-truth answers, answered from a candidate specification. The fraction of agreeing probes, which we call the fidelity, decomposes into contradiction and coverage-gap rates that drive targeted spec edits to convergence. On a 15-program, roughly 12k-line COBOL benchmark (AWS CardDemo), we raise frozen-test specification fidelity from 0.63 to 0.94 over eight iterations, with the plateau location predicted by a two-state Markov fixed point $F^\dagger$ from just four iterations of rate data. Probes come from an LLM reading the code or from a static-analysis pipeline over its control-flow, data-flow, and system-dependence graphs, with a tunable mixture. A probe-resampling protocol with a frozen held-out set gives a Hoeffding-bounded overfitting discriminant; our measured train/test gap stays more than an order of magnitude below this envelope. Three graph-grounded mixtures lift fidelity by +16 to +30 points; cross-distribution evaluation shows the LLM and symbolic channels are empirically complementary. A cross-family generator sweep on five independent LLM lineages (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, Alibaba, OpenAI) confirms the convergence behaviour is not tied to any single model family: three of five non-Claude generators produce trajectories consistent with the Markov fixed-point prediction, and the frozen-test protocol actively falsifies the two generators whose probe distributions drift across iterations. The method applies to any pair of artifacts that are supposed to describe the same behaviour. |
| title | Fidelity Probes for Specification--Code Alignment |
| topic | Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence D.2.4; I.2.7; G.3 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17246 |