mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Detecting Inconsistencies in Model Specifications with LLM-as-Verifier Reasoning

arXiv 2610.01847 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation also fits: Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

Model specifications define how large language models (LLMs) should behave, guiding alignment training, inference-time behavior, and evaluation. Yet these specifications may themselves contain defects: two individually reasonable principles may prescribe incompatible behavior when applied to the same situation, leaving no response that satisfies both. Detecting such inconsistencies is challenging. Formalizing natural-language specifications risks losing subtle distinctions, while behavior-based testing cannot reliably distinguish specification defects from differences in model behavior. We introduce VeriSpec, the first approach to directly detect inconsistencies in model specifications by auditing the specification text itself. Our key insight is to preserve the specification in natural language while using an LLM as a verifier. VeriSpec extracts structured, context-aware rules, constructs a topic-guided graph to cluster behaviorally related rules at the same authority level, and applies LLM-as-verifier reasoning to detect inconsistencies. Applying VeriSpec to the OpenAI Model Spec, we extract 405 rules and manually validate five inconsistencies, all reported to its developers, who responded positively and have initiated internal discussions. Compared with five baselines, VeriSpec identifies the most validated inconsistencies, achieves the highest precision (38.5%), and incurs the lowest cost per validated inconsistency (11.12). These results establish direct specification auditing as a practical complement to behavioral alignment evaluation, catching defects at the source before they shape any model. The code is available at https://github.com/HIPREL-Group/VeriSpec.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

12 of 21 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  2. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  3. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 441
  4. 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 292
  5. 2025AI Alignment at Your Discretioncited by 20
  6. 2021Catala: A Programming Language for the Lawcited by 18
  7. 2025Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Prioritiescited by 13
  8. 2025Stress-Testing Model Specs Reveals Character Differences among Language Modelscited by 10
  9. 2020Semi-Automated Protocol Disambiguation and Code Generationcited by 9
  10. 2025SpecEval: Evaluating Model Adherence to Behavior Specificationscited by 8
  11. 2026How Well Do Models Follow Their Constitutions?cited by 1
  12. 2026SpecAlign: Efficient Specification-Grounded Alignment of Large Language Models via Synthetic Datacited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond
  2. 2025LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling Research
  3. 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
  4. 2026Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models
  5. 2025ConsistencyChecker: Tree-based Evaluation of LLM Generalization Capabilities
  6. 2024General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting
  7. 2026When Specifications Conflict: A Symmetry-Based Framework for Measuring LLM Preferences
  8. 2026How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures