Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 5, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Large language models increasingly judge code, yet without external feedback such judgments are unreliable, and verifying them by executing tests or by extended reasoning is costly. Instead, execution-free correctness predictors use signals from the model's output probabilities, sampled solutions, or hidden states to identify judgments that warrant further verification. However, these predictors may degrade under distribution shifts when generalizing across projects and languages. We compare six execution-free predictors from four families on Qwen3-Coder-30B and gpt-oss-20b under benchmark shift between LiveCodeBench and BigCodeBench and language shift across Python, C++ and Java. We evaluate two targets: whether the model's own verdict on a program can be trusted, and whether the program itself is correct. Besides established approaches, we adapt two novel causal localization methods to code, which have been shown to be more robust out-of-distribution on natural language tasks. For verdict correctness, causal localization improves robustness to language shift. For Qwen3-Coder a probe on the causally localized subspace stays 0.09 AUROC ahead of output confidence under language shift (0.11 in distribution), significantly outperforming the best non-causal predictor by 0.04 AUROC on average. This advantage, however, does not generalize consistently to gpt-oss or to benchmark shift. For program correctness, predictors transfer more successfully between benchmarks, largely by identifying problems on which the model tends to fail. However, their ability to rank candidates within the same problem is limited.