Calibration, Not Compilation: Detecting and Repairing Misspecified Probabilistic Programs Written by Language Models
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
arXiv:2606.31630 (cs)
[Submitted on 30 Jun 2026]
Title:Calibration, Not Compilation: Detecting and Repairing Misspecified Probabilistic Programs Written by Language Models
View a PDF of the paper titled Calibration, Not Compilation: Detecting and Repairing Misspecified Probabilistic Programs Written by Language Models, by Jian Xu and 3 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Language models increasingly write probabilistic programs (in NumPyro, Stan, or Pyro), but a program that compiles, runs, and passes every unit test can still be \emph{statistically} wrong -- a Gaussian likelihood for heavy-tailed data, a Poisson for over-dispersed counts, an invalid prior support, or a pathological parameterization. The right verifier is therefore not a test suite but the Bayesian workflow itself: posterior predictive checks, simulation-based calibration, sampler diagnostics ($\hat R$, divergences, ESS), and held-out predictive density. We study this calibration oracle along three axes. \textbf{Detection:} on a benchmark of $14$ misspecification types across $10$ model families ($200$ instances), it flags the bug with AUC $0.97$ ($88\%$ at $2\%$ FPR \emph{when handed the correct reference program, an upper bound}) -- and a fully \emph{reference-free} version that uses no correct program reaches $62$--$78\%$ (the upper figure from a small automated model search), versus $0\%$ for a unit-test oracle. \textbf{Repair:} used as feedback in an LLM repair loop across fifteen models, calibration significantly outperforms unit-test feedback -- which is itself \emph{significantly worse than no feedback at all}, a passing test inducing false confidence that suppresses repair -- and improves over no feedback on strong-but-unsaturated models (GPT-5.1 $33{\to}92\%$, Claude $75{\to}100\%$; paired McNemar, $n{=}228$). \textbf{Reality:} on programs LLMs write from scratch for neutral briefs, $15$--$47\%$ of runnable ones are statistically misspecified (unit tests catch none), and calibration-guided repair significantly beats LLM-as-judge review, a Bayesian-workflow checklist, and data-summary self-debug. Across all three, the lesson is the same: for probabilistic programs, correctness is calibration, not compilation.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.31630 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2606.31630v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.31630
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Calibration, Not Compilation: Detecting and Repairing Misspecified Probabilistic Programs Written by Language Models, by Jian Xu and 3 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender
(What is IArxiv?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Representation as a Bottleneck for Mechanistic Interpretability: The Manifestation Unit Protocol
Jul 2
-
SNAP-FM: Sparse Nonlinear Accelerated Projection for Physics-Constrained Generative Modeling
Jul 2
-
SemiScope: Disentangling Classifier Tuning and Joint Optimization in Semi-Supervised Security Classification
Jul 2
-
A Filtered Mixture-of-Generators for Fully Synthetic Survival Training
Jul 2
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.