aiqbench analysis
This research introduces "fidelity probes," a method where language models generate questions to verify if natural-language specifications accurately reflect existing code. By quantifying discrepancies between model answers based on specs versus ground truth derived from code analysis, the approach significantly improves specification quality during software modernization tasks. The technique effectively identifies missing or conflicting requirements, offering a robust framework for maintaining system integrity when updating legacy systems with AI assistance.
Fidelity Probes for Specification--Code Alignment
arXiv:2605.17246v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Software modernization often relies on natural-language specifications recovered from an existing implementation. Incorrect or missing requirements can lead to defects in the modernized system. We introduce fidelity probes to check a specification against the code and guide its revision. Each probe pairs a question about program behaviour with a reference answer derived from the code. A language model answers the question using only the specification, and the fraction of agreeing answers defines fidelity. Disagreements flag conflicting claims or missing information and guide proposed corrections and additions to the requirements. An LLM generates probes directly from code or phrases facts selected through control-flow, data-flow, and call-graph analysis. We use an observability rule to focus probe questions on behaviour that the modernized system is intended to preserve, including user-visible outputs, changes to stored business data, and interactions with other systems. We revise the specification using fresh probes and evaluate each version on a fixed held-out set. A repair-regression model describes how new failures can offset the gains from repairs. On CardDemo, held-out fidelity improves from 0.59 to 0.89, exceeding free-form revision from source code. We also evaluate the method on industrial systems and public documentation, and assess probe quality and reported defects through human reviews and comparison with an independent requirements audit.
Abstract:Software modernization often relies on natural-language specifications recovered from an existing implementation. Incorrect or missing requirements can lead to defects in the modernized system. We introduce fidelity probes to check a specification against the code and guide its revision. Each probe pairs a question about program behaviour with a reference answer derived from the code. A language model answers the question using only the specification, and the fraction of agreeing answers defines fidelity. Disagreements flag conflicting claims or missing information and guide proposed corrections and additions to the requirements. An LLM generates probes directly from code or phrases facts selected through control-flow, data-flow, and call-graph analysis. We use an observability rule to focus probe questions on behaviour that the modernized system is intended to preserve, including user-visible outputs, changes to stored business data, and interactions with other systems. We revise the specification using fresh probes and evaluate each version on a fixed held-out set. A repair-regression model describes how new failures can offset the gains from repairs. On CardDemo, held-out fidelity improves from 0.59 to 0.89, exceeding free-form revision from source code. We also evaluate the method on industrial systems and public documentation, and assess probe quality and reported defects through human reviews and comparison with an independent requirements audit.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
D.2.4; I.2.7; G.3
arXiv:2605.17246 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.17246v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.17246 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 308 words
Related coverage

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jun 7, 2026

Article: The AI Productivity Paradox in Test Automation: Moving beyond Structural Validation to Perception and Intent
InfoQ · Jun 1, 2026

Presentation: Exploding GPUs
InfoQ · Oct 16, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026