arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.05170

Verification Trap: Understanding Test-Time Selection Failures under False Premises in Code Generation

Feng He·Hejia Wang·Linghao Meng·Ming Gao·Qiankun Li
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Test-time compute has become a central way to improve code generation: systems sample multiple candidate programs and use verifier-visible evidence to select the final output. This paradigm implicitly assumes that the verifier provides a corrective signal independent from the generator. We challenge this assumption under misleading task premises. When the generator and verifier share a false premise, they become coupled through a mistaken belief: the generator produces premise-consistent shortcuts, while the verifier supplies evidence that fails to expose them. Consequently, the selector may choose a hidden-test-wrong candidate even when a hidden-test-correct program exists in the pool. We call this failure mode Verification Trap. Across three code-generation benchmarks and five code models, false premises consistently degrade first-sample correctness, reduce selector-chosen correctness after 64-sample test-time selection, and amplify recoverable mis-selection. Mechanistically, verifier-written tests inherit the premise-level blind spot, reshaping verifier-visible candidate space away from hidden-test correctness. These traces make Verification Trap predictable before hidden execution: a lightweight gold-free predictor using verifier-visible features reaches 0.846 AUROC. Our results identify decoupled evidence as a key mitigation axis: coupled scaling provides limited recovery, whereas premise-agnostic robustness auditors recover substantial oracle headroom.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Feng He, Hejia Wang, Linghao Meng, Ming Gao, Qiankun Li. 2026-10-04. Verification Trap: Understanding Test-Time Selection Failures under False Premises in Code Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05170

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AyurParam: A State-of-the-Art Bilingual Language Model for Ayurveda

Current large language models excel at broad, general-purpose tasks, but consistently underperform when exposed to highly specialized domains that require deep cultural, linguistic, and subject-matter expertise. In particular, traditional medical systems such as Ayurveda embody centuries of nuanced textual and clinical knowledge that mainstream LLMs fail to accurately interpret or apply. We introduce AyurParam-2.9B, a domain-specialized, bilingual language model fine-tuned from Param-1-2.9B using an extensive, expertly curated Ayurveda dataset spanning classical texts and clinical guidance. AyurParam's dataset incorporates context-aware, reasoning, and objective-style Q&A in both English and Hindi, with rigorous annotation protocols for factual precision and instructional clarity. Benchmarked on BhashaBench-Ayur, AyurParam not only surpasses all open-source instruction-tuned models in its size class (1.5--3B parameters), but also demonstrates competitive or superior performance compared to much larger models. The results from AyurParam highlight the necessity for authentic domain adaptation and high-quality supervision in delivering reliable, culturally congruent AI for specialized medical knowledge.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Limited Stereotype Control Through Routing Reweighting in MoE Language Models

Demographic prompts are routed differently from neutral prompts in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models, motivating tests of routing-level stereotype control. We introduce Fairness-Aware Routing Equilibrium (FARE), a diagnostic framework combining demographic routing profiles, empirical layer selection, and fixed inference-time reweighting, and evaluate five MoE architectures in English. At the selected operating points, CrowS-Pairs preference changes by at most 1.3 percentage points; DeepSeekMoE selects no intervention. Paired 95% confidence intervals exclude decreases larger than 2.2 points on each intervened model, and the only nominally significant change (Qwen1.5, p = 0.015) does not survive multiple-comparison correction. OLMoE and Qwen3 nevertheless change nearly every top-k expert set. Noise controls, random and truncated synthetic profiles, and hard masking also move preference by at most 1.5 points. Four generation protocols on OLMoE, Mixtral, Qwen1.5, and Qwen3 show no consistent change in the measured toxicity, lexical, or reference-overlap metrics. Selection and evaluation items overlap, so these comparisons are not independent evaluations. The tested reweighting procedure offers limited stereotype control.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage---a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return \textit{element-level} bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline---which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation and enforces multi-stage quality control. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

cs.CL↗