Verified but Vacuous: Three Failure Surfaces of LLM-Driven Verified Code Generation

arXiv cs.AINovember 5, 2026en

arXiv:2611.05590v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What should ``verified'' mean when evaluating LLM-generated code? Many existing pipelines report a single verification number. We argue this collapses three distinct properties measured in a conditional audit sequence: verifier acceptance (Surface A), \emph{syntactic specification binding (Surface B: does the proof obligation bind to the spec?), and \emph{semantic specification fidelity} (Surface C: does the spec capture the informal requirement?). Two empirical demonstrations show the surfaces separate. \textbf{First ($A \neq B$), via Li@Opus (a same-model reproduction of \citet{li2025dafny}'s Dafny-as-intermediate-representation (IR) pipeline

This is a short summary published by AI Global Wire. The full article is owned and hosted by arXiv cs.AI — open it there to read it in full.

• Forskning