When is LLM-Based Program Reasoning Correct? A Completion Semantics for LLM-Based Code Inference

Abstract

Due to token and cognitive limits, Large Language Models (LLMs) typically perform program reasoning over incomplete code fragments/prompts rather than complete programs. Such reasoning therefore must rely on {assumptions about omitted code and context. As a result, the meaning of an inference over a program fragment is not absolute, but depends on an implicit completion model describing how the fragment may be refined into a complete program. In this paper, we introduce completion semantics for LLM-based program reasoning. We formalize incomplete programs as denoting a space of possible refinements and define the correctness of existential inferences relative to a completion model. Under this view, a reported bug is correct whenever there exists a completion within the model that witnesses the bug. This perspective explains why many LLM-generated reports are neither simply correct nor incorrect, but instead depend on assumptions about omitted context. We have instantiated our approach in the form of a witness-generation workflow that concretizes completions underlying an inference by constructing executable refinements of the original program fragment. Witnesses serve both as evidence for existential claims and as a mechanism for exposing the assumptions required to support them. We evaluate our approach on real-world LLM-generated bug reports and program-analysis tasks. Our results show that witness generation effectively distinguishes inferences supported by plausible completions from those requiring unrealistic assumptions, providing a practical mechanism for validating reasoning over incomplete programs.