Narcissus is a synthesizer that keeps the proposals as syntax trees and scores each expansion of a candidate program in its context: does a proposal with the same surrounding structure continue the same way, and does the expansion rebuild a fragment the proposals repeat?
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) excel at programming, but not when the task fixes the target language: prompted with a grammar rare in their training data, their programs usually break the grammar or fail the given specification. Enumerative synthesizers search the space of syntactically correct programs systematically guided by LLMs; the state of the art guides them by approximating LLM proposals into rule frequencies, which loses where each construct belongs and prunes every rule the proposals miss, exactly when the proposals are wrong. We present Narcissus, a synthesizer that keeps the proposals as syntax trees and scores each expansion of a candidate program in its context: does a proposal with the same surrounding structure continue the same way, and does the expansion rebuild a fragment the proposals repeat? A regularization term keeps every rule reachable, so wrong proposals delay the solution but cannot hide it. Across five domains and two search backends, Narcissus beats static guidance at every budget and consistently outperforms re-prompting the LLM to fix its own proposals; it reaches proposal-like programs an order of magnitude sooner and solves $40\%$ of ARC tasks where the raw proposals solve $13\%$, all without a single LLM call during search.
UNSPECIFIC is a novel framework that synthesizes constraints common to two similar reference articles to reduce copy-pasting, selectively hardens only trivially satisfied constraints to balance difficulty and naturalness, and evaluates satisfaction on both the generated article and its summary to penalize superficial instruction following.
J. Sharma, Balpreet Kaur, Jeremiah Hong et al.· 0 citations
Large language model (LLM) coding agents constantly decide whether a version satisfies a constraint such as ^1.2.3 or>=2.0,<3, yet their grasp of version-constraint semantics has never been measured directly. We introduce SemVerBench, the first benchmark of LLM version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems (npm, PEP 440, Cargo): 240 machine-checkable items with unique answers, built author-neutrally from four balanced sources (each ecosystem's official test suite plus three frontier LLM proposers) and labeled by a non-circular two-implementation oracle. Evaluating six frontier models, we find systematic, predictable per-mechanism blind spots: a partial-comparator carry rule (>1.2 means>=1.3.0) traps every model on Cargo (near 60%), and although standard PEP 440 prefix matching is universal, on zero-pad/post-release corner cases GPT-5.1 collapses (0/26) while Claude stays at 97-100% (verified on a 67-item oracle-validated set). Opus significantly outperforms all other models, and Sonnet outperforms the OpenAI models (McNemar). The failures look more like an activation/application gap than a knowledge gap: injecting the rule or a light correct hint recovers most errors, whereas interval decomposition does not, and models are at ceiling on the basic forms of the same rules. An author-stratified analysis finds no statistically significant self-favoritism. Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches ~100%: coding agents should delegate version resolution to a resolver rather than reason about versions in-head.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in various software engineering tasks, such as code generation and translation. However, a key limitation in their performance may be their (lack of) understanding of programming-language semantics. Even when explicit semantics are given, it remains unclear whether LLMs apply those rules or lean on priors learned during pre-training instead. We study if LLMs lean on priors or given semantics with a novel task--Program Executability Prediction (PrEx)--that asks models to predict whether a program is semantically valid or invalid (and, if invalid, which formal rule it violates) given the program's syntax and operational semantics. Because PrEx requires both valid and invalid programs, we build a dataset with systematically generated invalid transformations derived from valid programs. We evaluate open-source coding LLMs under two semantic formalisms and two semantic shifts across Human-Written, LLM-Translated, and Fuzzer-Generated program splits. Our findings show that LLMs lean on pre-training priors rather than systematically applying the given rules, performing especially poorly on modified semantics and degrading further as program complexity increases. PrEx is available at https://github.com/EngineeringSoftware/prex.
Lara Marinov, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa et al.· 0 citations
Frontier language models that refuse harmful single-turn prompts often comply when the same intent is reached gradually over many turns, making multi-turn attacks one of the least understood failure modes of large language models. Most automated red-teaming methods treat this as a generation problem: produce attacks that break the model. We argue it is better framed as a search problem: discover, organize, and iteratively refine a diverse archive of attack strategies, producing a structured map of how a target model fails rather than a list of one-off successes. We introduce EvoFlint, which applies evolutionary quality-diversity search to multi-turn red-teaming. Attack strategies are phased conversation plans, not raw prompts, and are evolved through LLM-driven mutation and crossover. A Pareto fitness over attack success rate and peak severity preserves selection signal from near-miss attacks. A risk-indexed archive runs novelty search with local competition over strategy description embeddings inside each cell, maintaining diversity without committing to a predefined style taxonomy. A generation-level memory accumulates target-model insights across the population and feeds them back into strategy generation. On the HarmBench-test split, EvoFlint reaches attack success rates of 35.8% on Claude Sonnet 4.6, 59.7% on GPT-5.4, and 94.3% on Qwen3-32B, alongside 98.7% on the older GPT-4o included as a baseline reference. The resulting archive, organized by risk category, exposes for each target which categories of harm its safety training has and has not covered.
Fei-Tong Qiao, Li-Ren Peng, Shi-Ming Ren et al.· 0 citations
First-order concept synthesis asks a system to infer one formula that classifies labeled objects consistently across several finite relational structures. Every candidate can be evaluated exactly, but quantified first-order formulas form a vast search space, and LLM outputs are often semantically promising without being fully correct. We introduce Hypothesis Frontier, a verifier-guided neurosymbolic framework that evaluates each LLM formula on every training object, retains the strongest verified hypothesis across rounds, and uses its remaining errors to guide subsequent generation. Symbolic processing repairs invalid formulas while remaining anchored to the LLM-generated hypothesis, and simplifies train-valid formulas without changing any training prediction. Under matched models, problem sets, and LLM-round budgets, Hypothesis Frontier solves substantially more problems than repeated original-prompt generation. After the final formulas are selected, exact simplification shortens many train-valid formulas while preserving every training prediction. Exact symbolic reasoning therefore helps both to solve more induction problems and to compress many of the resulting formulas.
S. Batzoglou· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
