Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.24609

From Candidate Admission to Task-Level Return: Auditing LLM-Generated Code under Execution Contracts

Hiroyasu Usami·Keisuke Hara·Ayato Tsuboi·Naohiko Matsuda
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Admission rules retain generated programs, whereas selection policies return one candidate per task. We audit how these decisions interact with execution contracts in two separately frozen, disjoint HumanEvalPlus cohorts, each comprising 32 tasks, four samples per task per profile and two served profiles. Under the inline execution contract, a structural-and-self-test screen admits 4-9 expanded-suite nonpasses per 80-107 admissions and excludes 14-43 suite passes per 128 planned attempts. A restricted module-supply condition adds 20 and 14 passing admissions for one profile in the respective cohorts, plus one follow-up nonpass, and reduces the excluded suite passes to 14-23. All fixed first-admitted outcomes and abstentions remain unchanged. In the original pool, the added passes enter already all-passing admitted pools; in the follow-up, four of 24 common sample orders lose one passed task. Selected-subset diagnostics separately address registration-sensitive completion and reference-relative assertion disagreement, accounting for input domains and comparator tolerances. In these high-pass pools, candidate retention and task-level return diverge and are reported separately. Results are conditional on the saved pools, contracts and pinned suites; downstream training effects are unmeasured.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hiroyasu Usami, Keisuke Hara, Ayato Tsuboi, Naohiko Matsuda. 2026-10-17. From Candidate Admission to Task-Level Return: Auditing LLM-Generated Code under Execution Contracts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.24609

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bridging Generation and Training: A Systematic Review of Quality Issues in LLMs for Code

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate defective code, ranging from logical bugs to security vulnerabilities. Training-data quality is one contributor to these outcomes alongside model architecture, optimization and alignment, prompting and inference context, and decoding. However, the literature connecting specific training data quality issues to observable generated code quality issues has not been synthesized systematically. We review 114 included papers and establish taxonomies of eight generated-code quality dimensions and two broad groups of training-data issues. We then synthesize 12 recurring relationship families between training-data issues and generated-code outcomes, tracing each to its supporting papers, evidence basis, and limitations. We also synthesize detection and mitigation techniques across the data, model, and generation lifecycle. The findings position data curation as one layer of code-generation quality assurance coordinated with model- and inference-level controls, and identify provenance and controlled attribution as open research needs. Our repository is available at https://github.com/SYSUSELab/From-Data-to-Code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Directed Symbolic Execution for Vulnerability Discovery: An LLM-Guided Approach in KLEE

Symbolic execution effectively discovers security violations but suffers from path explosion. Engines like KLEE therefore use path prioritization heuristics to order state exploration, typically optimizing code coverage. However, path prioritization can become trapped in cyclic control-flow regions, where repeated branching consumes the exploration budget before exploration reaches vulnerable code beyond these cyclic regions. We propose KLEECopilot, a Large Language Model (LLM)-guided directed symbolic execution approach built on KLEE. KLEECopilot uses LLMs to mark potentially vulnerable code and guide path prioritization. It also integrates loop-exit prioritization to escape potentially non-vulnerable cycles and progress toward deeper vulnerabilities. Compared with baselines such as Empc, KLEECopilot improves basic block coverage by 42.24% and line coverage by 125.82%. It discovers 1,335 total violations and 87 unique violations, outperforming the second-best baseline by 32.2% in total violations and Empc by 24.3% in unique violations. Although KLEECopilot is sensitive to model family, it exhibits only marginal sensitivity to model scale, supporting the efficacy of integrating security semantics and loop-exit prioritization. Ablation studies further show that individual components contribute to effectiveness: alternative configurations involving searchers, internal components, marking sources, and prompt variants yield only 54--61 unique violations, while KLEECopilot maintains competitive code coverage.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Safety Analysis of CPSs Over-the-air Updates: Test Case Prioritization and Selection

Over-the-air (OTA) updates for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) allow engineers to modify their software wirelessly. In the automotive domain, they enable manufacturers to update software without physical access to the vehicle. However, OTA updates can generate a large number of possible software configurations. For example, end users may decide whether or not to install any given OTA updates. The combinatorial explosion of these configurations hampers SW testing, a standard practice for detecting errors in CPS. To overcome this limitation, we propose CRISP (CRIticality-based Selection and Prioritization), a novel framework supporting test case prioritization and selection in the context of OTA updates. Our framework leverages test case robustness, i.e., how far they are from violating the system requirements, to drive test case prioritization and selection. It enables engineers to rank test case executions from most to least critical, and to select only the critical test cases relevant to a given OTA update. We evaluated our approach using a representative SW product line consisting of seven different vehicles, 22 driving scenarios, and two software components. We considered 224 tests, requiring 59 hours of execution time. We assessed the effectiveness of CRISP across five OTA updates. We compared our solution with (a) a random test case prioritization and selection algorithm, and (b) AP-DISC, identified as the state-of-the-art solution in a recent empirical study on the subject. Our results show that CRISP outperforms our baselines in finding failure-revealing test cases, and that our selection procedure can be configured to find reasonable and practical tradeoffs among accuracy (percentage of failure-revealing test cases identified) and computational time (time required to find them).

cs.SE↗